J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator very much. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 1672 and S. 1673 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate reference, ``A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 1997, to authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1997, and for other purposes.'' I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis explaining its purpose by printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying S. 4, the Line-Item Veto Act. For many years, I have been a supporter of giving authority to the President to disapprove specific items of appropriation presented to him. On the first legislative day of this Congress, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 2, proposing a constitutional amendment to give the President line-item veto authority. Presidential authority for a line-item veto is a significant fiscal tool which would provide a valuable means to reduce and restrain excessive appropriations. This proposal will give the President the opportunity to approve or disapprove individual items of appropriation which have passed the Congress. It does not grant power to simply reduce the dollar amount legislated by the Congress. Madam President, 43 Governors currently have constitutional authority to reduce or eliminate items or provisions in appropriation measures. My home State of South Carolina provides this authority, and I found it most useful during my service as Governor. Surely the President should have authority that 43 Governors now have to check unbridled spending. It is widely recognized that Federal spending is out of control. The Federal budget has been balanced only once in the last 35 years. Over the past 20 years, Federal receipts, in current dollars, have grown from $279 billion to more than $1.3 trillion. In the meantime, Federal outlays have grown from $332 billion in 1975, to more than $1.5 trillion last year, an increase of greater than $1.1 trillion. Annual budget deficits have reached $200 billion, with the national debt growing to more than $5 trillion. Madam President, it is clear that neither the President nor the Congress are effectively dealing with the budget crisis. The President continues to submit budgets which contain little spending reform and continue to project annual deficits. If we are to have sustained economic growth, Government spending must be significantly reduced. A balanced budget amendment, which I am hopeful will still be passed this Congress, and line-item veto authority would do much to bring about fiscal responsibility. Madam President, it would be a mistake to fail to pass this measure. It is my hope that this Congress will now approve the line-item veto and send a clear message to the American people that we are making a serious effort to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. Madam President, I congratulate the conferees for their work on this bill. This conference report provides the President with a very narrow authority to cancel specific appropriations, direct spending, or limited tax benefits. Under this provision, the Congress retains its legislative power of the purse in that the Congress may enact a bill disapproving the President's previous cancellation. This bill, of course, would be subject to a Presidential veto and subsequent congressional override. Madam President, the conference report also requires that any canceled budget authority, direct spending, or tax benefit be applied to deficit reduction. Canceled funds would not be available to offset additional spending. Madam President, the line-item veto will introduce a new level of discipline in the Federal budget process. It will bring an additional level of scrutiny to items of Federal spending. The line-item veto, combined with a balanced budget amendment, true reforms in entitlement spending, and restraint in Federal appropriations, will put us back on the track of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Congressional Record of November 7, 1995, February 20 and 26, March 5, 6, 11, 14, and 18, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to be a principal cosponsor of the Defend America Act of 1996, which was introduced by Senator Dole today. This legislation will fill a glaring void in U.S. national security policy by requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003 that is capable of defending the United States against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attack. Ironically, most Americans already believe that we have such a system in place. This assumption is understandable since under the Constitution the President's first responsibility is to provide for the defense of the American homeland. Unfortunately, the current President has decided that this obligation is one that can be indefinitely delayed. I join Senator Dole and others today in proclaiming that the time has come to end America's complete vulnerability to ballistic missile blackmail and attack. The President and senior members of the administration have argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile defense system. This is simply not true. The political and military situation in the former Soviet Union has deteriorated, leading to greater uncertainty over the control and security of Russian strategic nuclear forces. China is firing missiles near Taiwan as if it were a skeet range, and has even made veiled threats against the United States. North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be capable of reaching the United States once deployed. Other hostile and unpredictable countries, such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq, have made clear their desire to acquire missiles capable of reaching the United States. The technology and knowledge to produce missiles and weapons of mass destruction is available on the open market. China's recent provocations against Taiwan highlight the need for the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as possible. Although veiled threats against the United States may be only saber rattling, American military and political leaders should not ignore them. If the United States possessed even a limited national missile defense system, U.S. decision-makers would have a much greater degree of flexibility in considering our military and diplomatic options. A vulnerable America is not only subject to missile attack, but also to blackmail and intimidation. Last year, President Clinton vetoed the Defense authorization bill mainly because it called for deployment of a national missile defense system. The administration argued that there was no need for such a system, that the threat is 10 or 15 years away. China has clearly illustrated how their judgment is flawed. The threat is here today. If the situation should deteriorate between China and Taiwan, President Clinton will almost certainly regret the fact that the United States has no means of dealing with Chinese missile threats other than by our own nuclear threats. This is hardly a credible response. A national missile defense system, on the other hand, would eliminate the risk and uncertainty that would surely occur if China and the United States engaged in a series of nuclear threats and counterthreats. This would be an invitation for disaster. If we had an operational national missile defense system, we could confidently deal with Chinese missile threats and pursue our policies and objectives without intimidation. The other important factor to bear in mind when considering the need for a national missile defense system, is that such a system can actually discourage countries from acquiring long-range missiles in the first place. In this sense, we should view national missile defense as a powerful nonproliferation tool, not just something to be considered some time in the future as a response to newly emerging threats. The policy advocated in the Defend America Act of 1996 is virtually identical to that contained in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President. Like the legislation vetoed by the President, the Defend America Act of 1996 would require that the entire United States be protected against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized attack by the year 2003. It differs from the vetoed legislation in that it provides the Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in determining the precise architecture for the system. The Defend America Act of 1996 urges the President to begin negotiations to amend the AMB Treaty to allow for deployment of an effective system. But it also recommends that, if these negotiations fail to produce acceptable amendments within 1 year, Congress and the President should consider withdrawing the United States from the ABM Treaty. Nothing in this legislation, however, requires or advocates abrogation or violation of the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President of the United States vetoed the Defense authorization bill because he opposed the deployment of a system to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack. Today, I am honored to join Senator Dole in sending a clear message--we will not stand idly by while the United States remains undefended against a real and growing threat. The legislation we are introducing today will fulfill a constitutional, strategic, and moral obligation that has been neglected for 4 years.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to be a principal cosponsor of the Defend America Act of 1996, which was introduced by Senator Dole today. This legislation will fill a glaring void in U.S. national security policy by requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003 that is capable of defending the United States against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attack. Ironically, most Americans already believe that we have such a system in place. This assumption is understandable since under the Constitution the President's first responsibility is to provide for the defense of the American homeland. Unfortunately, the current President has decided that this obligation is one that can be indefinitely delayed. I join Senator Dole and others today in proclaiming that the time has come to end America's complete vulnerability to ballistic missile blackmail and attack. The President and senior members of the administration have argued that there is no threat to justify deployment of a national missile defense system. This is simply not true. The political and military situation in the former Soviet Union has deteriorated, leading to greater uncertainty over the control and security of Russian strategic nuclear forces. China is firing missiles near Taiwan as if it were a skeet range, and has even made veiled threats against the United States. North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be capable of reaching the United States once deployed. Other hostile and unpredictable countries, such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq, have made clear their desire to acquire missiles capable of reaching the United States. The technology and knowledge to produce missiles and weapons of mass destruction is available on the open market. China's recent provocations against Taiwan highlight the need for the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as possible. Although veiled threats against the United States may be only saber rattling, American military and political leaders should not ignore them. If the United States possessed even a limited national missile defense system, U.S. decision-makers would have a much greater degree of flexibility in considering our military and diplomatic options. A vulnerable America is not only subject to missile attack, but also to blackmail and intimidation. Last year, President Clinton vetoed the Defense authorization bill mainly because it called for deployment of a national missile defense system. The administration argued that there was no need for such a system, that the threat is 10 or 15 years away. China has clearly illustrated how their judgment is flawed. The threat is here today. If the situation should deteriorate between China and Taiwan, President Clinton will almost certainly regret the fact that the United States has no means of dealing with Chinese missile threats other than by our own nuclear threats. This is hardly a credible response. A national missile defense system, on the other hand, would eliminate the risk and uncertainty that would surely occur if China and the United States engaged in a series of nuclear threats and counterthreats. This would be an invitation for disaster. If we had an operational national missile defense system, we could confidently deal with Chinese missile threats and pursue our policies and objectives without intimidation. The other important factor to bear in mind when considering the need for a national missile defense system, is that such a system can actually discourage countries from acquiring long-range missiles in the first place. In this sense, we should view national missile defense as a powerful nonproliferation tool, not just something to be considered some time in the future as a response to newly emerging threats. The policy advocated in the Defend America Act of 1996 is virtually identical to that contained in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress and vetoed by the President. Like the legislation vetoed by the President, the Defend America Act of 1996 would require that the entire United States be protected against a limited, accidental, or unauthorized attack by the year 2003. It differs from the vetoed legislation in that it provides the Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in determining the precise architecture for the system. The Defend America Act of 1996 urges the President to begin negotiations to amend the AMB Treaty to allow for deployment of an effective system. But it also recommends that, if these negotiations fail to produce acceptable amendments within 1 year, Congress and the President should consider withdrawing the United States from the ABM Treaty. Nothing in this legislation, however, requires or advocates abrogation or violation of the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President of the United States vetoed the Defense authorization bill because he opposed the deployment of a system to defend the American people against ballistic missile attack. Today, I am honored to join Senator Dole in sending a clear message--we will not stand idly by while the United States remains undefended against a real and growing threat. The legislation we are introducing today will fulfill a constitutional, strategic, and moral obligation that has been neglected for 4 years.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 40th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Tunisia. Since gaining independence from France on March 20, 1956, Tunisians have been dedicated to pursuing a path of progress. Although this small North African country has limited natural resources, it has shown great initiative by successfully devoting a majority of its assets to promoting its people and developing its economy, stressing education as the key to its future. The private sector has contributed greatly to the economy and, as a result, Tunisians have created a diversified, market-oriented economy. While the United States has assisted the Tunisian economy through focused development programs, Tunisia has been able to advance beyond our assistance and is quickly approaching an era of economic partnership with us. The friendship between the United States and Tunisia dates back almost 200 years when our two countries signed a friendship treaty. Since that time, we have had an outstanding relationship marked by respect, cooperation, and a mutual commitment to freedom and democracy. We have a strong military alliance, routinely engaging in regular joint exercises and program exchanges. Strictly defensive in nature, the Tunisian military force is among the best trained and most professional in the Arab world. Like the United States, Tunisia is dedicated to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and has participated in many peacekeeping operations around the world. Despite the volatile situation in North Africa, Tunisia has played a key role in preserving stability and peace. Further, they have been at the forefront of the struggle against terrorism, intolerance, and blind violence. They have appealed to the world community through various organizations, including the United Nations, to adopt strict measures in order to combat terrorism and extremism. In addition, Tunisia has played a significant role and is a key supporter in securing peace in the Middle East. They were the first Arab State to host a multilateral meeting of the peace process and to welcome an official Israeli delegation in Tunis, thus promoting a dialog between Arabs and Israelis. Since that initial meeting, they have hosted two other events and are scheduled to host others. As a result of their efforts, in January of this year, Tunisia and Israel agreed to establish formal diplomatic relations. Earlier this week, Tunis served as the host city for the Joint Military Commission meeting, further demonstrating their dedication to peace in the Middle East and reinforcing the cooperation between the United States and Tunisia. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate our friends in Tunisia on successfully achieving this milestone and commend them for their peacekeeping efforts.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I understand this amendment now has been agreed to by both sides. There is no objection. We tried to work everything out in a satisfactory manner. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my amendment No. 3526. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today the administration officially sent its budget requests to the Congress. Although much of the detailed budget information is still not available for review, I want to provide my initial views of the material we have received in the Armed Services Committee. On the positive side of the ledger, I was very pleased that the military pay raise was fully funded in this budget request. The young men and women who serve our Nation in uniform continue to be the most important asset of our Nation's defense. This year, I intend that the Armed Services Committee will continue to provide increased funding for the quality-of-life initiatives and programs we began in last year's authorization bill. Mr. President, I am troubled over several decisions made in the proposed budget. First is the Defense Department's decision to again reduce funding for critical ballistic missile defenses. We should be seeking ways to accelerate the development and deployment of both theater and national missile defense systems, not delay them. Under the Department's new proposal, we would not deploy a theater high altitude area defense system, commonly known as THAAD, or Navy upper tier, for another decade. This delay is unacceptable. I find it hard to believe that the administration would continue to place the lives of our service men and women at risk, by delaying this critical capability. Additionally, the levels of spending for modernization are perilously dangerous. Gains made in last year's bill, as a result of funds added by Congress, to revitalize modernization, may be lost due to inadequate levels of funding in this budget. The procurement accounts have been reduced by 44 percent since fiscal year 1992. This year's budget request decreases procurement spending even further. General Shalikashvili recently stated we should provide $60 billion a year for defense modernization by fiscal year 1998. This is 2 years earlier than the administration previously indicated in last year's budget, and now will not be achieved until fiscal year 2001. Recent testimony, before the Armed Services Committee by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Owens, reinforces my concerns. I agree with Admiral Owens that we have a ``crisis in procurement.'' I agree with him also, that procurement continues to be underfunded. While the Department's planning documents reflect increased spending for procurement in the outyears, I am not confident that we will ever get there. The administration's budget for this year reflects another decline in procurement spending. It appears that each year, modernization is used as a bill payer to fix other near term problems. This concerns me. I fail to see how this budget provides for adequate modernization. I believe that the Congress will be required to add funds to the defense budget again this year, to provide for minimal levels of modernization. The Armed Services Committee will continue to look for opportunities to work with the military services, as we did last year, to add funds where they will have the most beneficial effects. We intend to invest money now where these investments will save money in the future. As an example, last year we provided authority for multiyear procurement and an additional $82 million for the Longbow Apache Helicopter Program in the fiscal year 1996 Defense bill. As a result, we may save up to $1 billion over the life of this program. We want to continue to look at other innovative ways to achieve savings, which can then be applied toward other vital defense needs. Finally, I remain concerned about the increasing frequency of deployments and the amount of time our men and women in uniform spend away from their homes and families. Ongoing and contingency operations, such as Haiti and Bosnia, not only drain resources away from current and future readiness, but place undue strain on our service members and their families. Over the course of the next couple of months, the Armed Services Committee will continue to conduct an extensive evaluation of the budget request. Readiness, both current and long term, must be maintained and in some cases, revitalized. Modernization must be restored. Missile defense must become a reality.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the United States gained its freedom from our colonial masters in a bloody and hard fought war for independence. By the end of our 8-year struggle with the Crown, the young United States possessed the Continental Army, the force that ultimately defeated the English, but in 1776, it was ordinary men who grabbed weapons and first fired on the redcoats at Lexington. With that ``shot heard 'round the World,'' not only was a blow for freedom struck, but the tradition of the citizen-soldier was hatched, one that remains alive and strong in our Nation today in the form of the National Guard. In cities and towns throughout the United States, one will find armories where men and women, much like their Minuteman forefathers, drill and prepare to meet the missions with which they are tasked. While much about the Guard has changed since the 1700's, muskets have been replaced by M-16A2 rifles and the horse cavalry has been replaced by the M1A2 main battle tank, one thing has remained constant, that those who serve in the Guard are willing to serve selflessly as they come to the aid of their community and work for the defense of the United States. In recent years, perhaps one of the biggest backers of the National Guard here in the Senate has been my good friend, and predecessor as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Over the years, Senator Nunn has established a well-deserved reputation for being one of the most well-versed Members of the Senate in matters related to defense and national security. Without question, his opinion is valued and respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle, by senior officers in each of the services, by Presidents, and by the people of the United States. He has stood as an advocate for a strong defense, including what he believes should be a well-trained, well- equipped, and well-supported National Guard. In recognition of Senator Nunn's support of the military and his belief in the National Guard, the National Guard Association of Georgia established the Sam Nunn Award which it presents each year to a person who they believe has demonstrated ``solid and continuous support for the role, function, mission and purpose of the National Guard in meeting its international, national, state, and local mission.'' I am very proud to have been the recipient of the award for 1995, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate my friend, Mr. Coy Short of Atlanta, on being awarded this recognition by the National Guard Association of Georgia this year. I have had the pleasure of knowing Coy for a number of years, over which time he has consistently demonstrated not only his patriotism, but his support for those who serve in all branches of the service, in both the Active Forces, the Reserves, and the Guard. He is a person who has taken a leadership role in community-military relations, lending his leadership to a number of committees designed to serve those who serve, including the Governor's Military Advisory Council; the USO Council of Georgia; and the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce's Greater Atlanta Military Affairs Council. His efforts on behalf of those in uniform have been recognized numerous times over the years by the Army, the National Guard, and by defense-related and community-spirited groups in the following manners: The 94th Airlift Wing Man of the Year Award; National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Award for Outstanding Public Service; Oglethorpe Distinguished Services Medal for Outstanding Support of the Georgia National Guard, and National Distinguished Service Award, Association of the United States Army. Also the Phoenix Award by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, for providing leadership to the Greater Atlanta Military Affairs Council; Award from the National Guard Bureau for outstanding support of the Army National Guard; and Army Commendation Medal for public service on behalf of Forces Command. Coy Short not only works hard on behalf of Atlanta's military community, he is one of the city's biggest boosters. As a member of the Peach Bowl's executive committee, he helps to make one of college football's most popular events a success, and through his position as the Deputy Regional Commissioner for the Social Security Administration's Atlanta region, Coy's professional efforts have benefited tens of thousands of Georgians. Not surprisingly, he has been recognized by the Social Security Administration for his work, including being awarded the Commissioner's Citation, the highest recognition that can be given by that agency. At this very moment, there are National Guard soldiers and airmen who are selflessly serving in dangerous assignments throughout the world, and if given the opportunity, I am certain that they would want to express their appreciation to Coy Short for all he has done to support them. I join these brave men and women who are serving in the defense of our Nation, along with the National Guard Association of Georgia, in saluting a man who sets the highest standard for civic mindedness and support for the Nation's military forces. His efforts make Atlanta a better place to live and the United States a safer and more secure Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this week in March is a traditionally busy one here in Washington as tens of thousands of children of all ages arrive in the Nation's Capital. They come to the District of Columbia from all over the United States during their spring break vacation to learn about our Government and our history, both of which are unparalleled. Over the past 4 or 5 days, I doubt that there one Member of this Chamber who has not met several groups of his or her young constituents, boys and girls who have stopped by for Gallery passes, a photo, or just to say ``hello.'' I also doubt that there is one Senator who was not pleased to meet with these children as each of us recognizes that the youth of today represent the future of our country. That recognition clearly guides us as we work to ensure that the United States remains a nation of opportunity and freedom. While what we do here in the Senate helps our children, there are other organizations out there who dedicate all of their efforts to making the lives of our youngest citizens better. One such group is the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. From coast to coast and from north to south, there are boys and girls clubs in thousands of communities of every imaginable size. The service this organization provides range from recreational activities to counseling, but most importantly, they provide a place for our young people to go and be involved in constructive activities. Each year, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America hosts a congressional breakfast, and as the Capitol is filled with children this week, I thought this would be an ideal time to share the thoughts and comments of those who spoke at this year's event. Their comments will give those who read them an insight into this organization and the significant work they do. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Robert E. Henderson, of Columbia, SC, for his dedicated service as the president of the South Carolina Research Authority. Throughout his life, Dr. Henderson has worked to make his community, State, and Nation better places in many different ways, not the least of which was through his stint in the Army during World War II. During that time, he fought our enemies as an infantryman, rising to the rank of staff sergeant and being awarded a Purple Heart. Nearly 50 years later, he continued to work for the defense of the Nation when he was appointed to the prestigious Defense Science Board and the Defense Manufacturing Board. Dr. Henderson's most significant contributions to my State came through his work as the president of the South Carolina Research Authority, a position from which he recently retired. Under his direction, the authority has helped the Palmetto State to become a force in high-technology research and development, industry, and education. Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Henderson and the SCRA, billions of dollars have been added to our State's economy and South Carolina has become a favored place for companies to do business. Appropriately, Dr. Henderson's good work has been recognized many times and he has even been awarded South Carolina's highest award, the Order of the Palmetto. Mr. President, Robert Henderson has had an important impact on South Carolina and we are grateful for all his efforts on behalf of our State. I wish him good health and much happiness in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee agreed on March 13, 1996 to issue the following statement concerning the consideration of the nomination of Commander Robert Stumpf, U.S. Navy. On March 11, 1994, the President submitted various nominations for promotion in the Navy to the grade of Captain (0-6), including a list containing the nomination of Commander Stumpf. On the same date, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, in the letter required by the committee on all Navy and Marine Corps nominees, advised the committee that none of the officers had been identified as potentially implicated on matters related to Tailhook. The list was reported favorably to the Senate on May 19, 1994, and all nominations on the list were confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1994. Subsequent to the Senate's confirmation of the list, but prior to the appointment by the President of Commander Stumpf to the grade of Captain, the committee was advised by the Department of Defense that the March 11, 1994 letter had been in error because the Navy had failed to inform the Office of the Secretary of Defense that Commander Stumpf had been identified as potentially implicated in Tailhook. On June 30, 1994, the committee requested that the Navy withhold action on the promotion until the committee had an opportunity to review the information that had not been made available to the Senate during the confirmation proceedings. On April 4, 1995, the Navy provided the Committee with the report of the investigation and related information concerning Commander Stumpf, and subsequently provided additional information in response to requests from the committee. On October 25, 1995, the committee met in closed session--consistent with longstanding practice--to consider a number of nominations and to consider the matter involving Commander Stumpf. The committee directed the Chairman and Ranking Member to advise the Secretary of the Navy that ``had the information regarding Commander Stumpf's activities surrounding Tailhook `91 been available to the committee, as required, at the time of the nomination, the committee would not have recommended that the Senate confirm his nomination to the grade of Captain.'' The committee also directed that the letter advise the Secretary that: ``The committee recognizes that, in light of the Senate having earlier given its advice and consent to Commander Stumpf's nomination, the decision to promote him rests solely with the Executive Branch.'' A draft letter was prepared, made available for review by all members of the committee, and was transmitted to the Secretary on November 13, 1995. On December 22, 1995, the Secretary of the Navy removed Commander Stumpf's name from the promotion list. The committee met on March 12, 1996, to review the committee's procedures for considering Navy and Marine Corps nominations in the aftermath of Tailhook. At that meeting, the committee reviewed the proceedings concerning Commander Stumpf. The committee, in considering the promotion of Commander Stumpf, acted in good faith and in accordance with established rules and procedures, including procedures designed to protect the privacy and reputation of nominees, with appropriate regard for the rights of Commander Stumpf. The Chief of Naval Operations has testified that he believes such confidentiality should be maintained. The committee made its November 13, 1995 recommendation based upon information that was made available by the Navy. At the present time, no nomination concerning Commander Stumpf is pending before the committee, and the Secretary of the Navy has removed his name from the promotion list. The committee has been advised by the Navy's General Counsel that this administrative action taken by the Secretary of the Navy is final and that the Secretary cannot act unilaterally to promote Commander Stumpf. The committee notes that much of the material that has appeared in the media about the substantive and procedural issues concerning this matter, is inaccurate and incomplete. As with any nominee whose name has been removed from a promotion list, Commander Stumpf remains eligible for further nomination by the President. If he is nominated again for promotion to Captain, the committee will give the nomination the same careful consideration it would give any nominee.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)), an advance notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. This advance notice seeks comment on a number of regulatory issues arising under section 220 of the Congressional Accountability Act. Section 220 applies to covered congressional employees and employing offices the rights, protections, and responsibilities established under chapter 71 of title V, United States Code, related to Federal service labor-management relations. Section 304 requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Brig. Gen. Richard L. Reynard, the staff director of the Committee on Armed Services. Dick Reynard, who is well known to many in the Senate and in the Department of Defense, is leaving the committee to return to the private sector. General Reynard joined the committee as the minority staff director in April 1993. He quickly earned the reputation as a capable leader to whom the Members and staff could turn for clear advice and counsel. His more than 34 years of leadership and management experience in government and the private sector served him and the committee very well. General Reynard was commissioned in the Army as an artillery officer following graduation from the U.S. Military Academy in June 1958. He served in a wide variety of staff and command assignments at every level of the Army, including a combat tour in Vietnam. General Reynard taught at the U.S. Military Academy where he helped shape a new generation of leaders for our Nation. Many Members of the Senate remember Dick Reynard from his assignment as the Army's liaison officer to the Senate where he ensured that we understood the Army's priorities and traveled with us as we performed our duties around the world. Following retirement from the Army, General Reynard worked in the private sector as an officer in a small corporation and as a government relations specialist. When I asked General Reynard to be my staff director, he agreed to return to Government service even though it meant personal and financial sacrifice. During his first year in the committee, we addressed such important issues as the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy concerning the service of gays in the military, force reduction policies and benefits, assignment of women in the military, and Secretary Aspin's reorganization of the Department of Defense. His analysis, advice, and ability to protect the minority points of view resulted in important legislation which enjoyed bipartisan support. Following the elections in November 1994, General Reynard administered the transition of the Armed Services Committee from a Republican minority to the majority. Under his direction, the Armed Services Committee staff was in place and ready to support the committee members when the Congress convened in January 1995. During his 3 years with the committee, General Reynard earned the reputation as a reliable, steady, and fair person to whom Members and staff could turn when they sought advice or insight on National Security issues. He was a tireless, dedicated, and trusted aide to me. I know many in this Chamber join me in expressing our appreciation to General Reynard and in wishing him and his wife Bibs well in his new endeavors. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act--Libertad. As an original cosponsor of this legislation in the Senate, I have long believed that the United States should strengthen international sanctions against the dictatorial regime of Fidel Castro. I regret that it has taken the most recent outrageous behavior of the Cuban Government to convince the President of this. Fidel Castro was, is, and always will be a despot and a murderer who has no regard for human life and no respect for international law. The downing of 2 private planes and the killing of 4 civilians by Cuban military fighter aircraft reiterates this fact. It is imperative that Mr. Castro realize that the United States will not tolerate his tyranny. The passage of the Libertad Act will send this vitally important message. This legislation strengthens international sanctions against Cuba, provides support for a free and independent Cuba, protects the interests of American citizens whose property was confiscated by the Castro regime, and denies visas to individuals who traffic in confiscated property. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this vital legislation. President Clinton has agreed to sign this act into law. It is time that we send a strong bipartisan message to Fidel Castro.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 18 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, and Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of December 18, 1995, January 22, February 1, and February 9, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on January 24, 1996, my able colleague from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, the chairman of the House National Security Committee, received the 1996 Minuteman of the Year Award from the Reserve Officers Association of the United States. He is most deserving of this high honor. Throughout the 25 years that Floyd Spence has served in the House of Representatives, he has been a strong advocate for ensuring that our Nation's defense capabilities are second to none, and he has demonstrated great leadership ability as the chairman of the House National Security Committee in the 104th Congress. Floyd Spence is a man of character and integrity, and it is a privilege to work with him. He is truly dedicated to the freedoms that we as Americans hold so dear. Mr. President, I was so impressed with the remarks that Chairman Spence made when he received the 1996 Minuteman of the Year Award, that I would like to share them with my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the address made by Floyd Spence to the Reserve Officers Association of the United States on January 24, 1996, be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend the leadership, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their extensive efforts and good work on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I am pleased that the Senate is now giving consideration to final passage of this legislation. I have seen the telephone business develop from its infancy, when obtaining a party-line telephone was a truly amazing step for many Americans, to today's tremendous range of telecommunications products and services. It is impossible to predict what the future holds in this dynamic sector of our economy, but it is clear that telecommunications is among the most critical and far-reaching issues before the Congress. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, two important antitrust issues deserve mention as we consider final passage of this historic legislation. First, I am pleased that the legislation now includes a meaningful role for the Department of Justice in determining when the Bell Operating Companies should be permitted to provide long distance telecommunications. As I have previously stated, the Bell companies certainly should be allowed to enter long distance markets under appropriate circumstances, for it is generally desirable to have as many competitors as possible in each market. The issue is how to determine the point at which entry by Bell companies will help rather than harm competition. That question, quite simply, is an antitrust matter which will be informed by the antitrust expertise and specialization of the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. The Justice Department's Antitrust Division has been deeply involved in nurturing and protecting a competitive environment in this industry for more than 20 years, through five administrations. The Justice Department was responsible for the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly, which created the current Bell companies. The Antitrust Division has been evaluating the potential competitive effects-- positive and negative--of Bell entry into long distance since that time. Through this work, the Division has achieved unparalled expertise which is bolstered by its experience and perspective gained from evaluating numerous markets throughout our economy. Anticompetitive conduct in long distance markets was at the heart of the Antitrust Division's case against the old Bell system monopoly, and it has been a central concern in the current legislation. During the debate over the telecommunications bill in the Senate in June 1995, I was on the floor for several days with an amendment to give the Department of Justice primary responsibility to determine when the Bell operating companies should be permitted to enter long distance markets, and to avoid duplicative efforts by the Federal Communications Commission. My amendment to give the Antitrust Division independent authority only narrowly failed on the Senate floor last June, while in August a similar amendment received the support of more than one-third of the House of Representatives. When it became clear that there would be one consolidated procedure within the FCC to decide on Bell applications for long distance authorization, it became important to ensure that the antitrust expertise of the Antitrust Division would be given adequate weight in the decision. I am pleased that in the final legislation we are considering today, proposed long distance entry is determined by the FCC subject to judicial review, but only after the FCC consults with the Attorney General on the application, and gives the Attorney General's evaluation substantial weight. This process, which permits the Attorney General to submit any comments and supporting materials deemed appropriate, is critical to making accurate and proper determinations about long distance entry. Through its work in investigating the telecommunications industry and enforcing the MFJ, the Antitrust Division has accumulated important knowledge, evidence, and experience that can be constructively brought to bear on these evaluations. The substantial weight requirement will also ensure that the expertise of the Antitrust Division will be brought to bear in any appeal of a decision made on long distance entry. If the FCC rejects the Antitrust Division's recommendation, the court must look to the weight the FCC accorded the Attorney General's evaluation in ascertaining whether the FCC correctly followed the law. Review of this legal requirement should be governed by the standard that generally applies to questions of law. As a practical matter, this legal requirement ensures that the reviewing court will consider the Antitrust Division's position on the merits--and will assess for itself the views and evidence put forward in support of that position--and will not discount that position out of customary judicial deference to the FCC's decision. Moreover, the Antitrust Division retains its full authority to represent the interests of the United States on appeal, which permits it to contribute its unique antitrust expertise and perspective to the judicial process. The second important antitrust issue in this legislation is the unequivocal antitrust savings clause that explicitly maintains the full force of the antitrust laws in this vital industry. Today we take for granted that the antitrust laws apply to the communications sector. During the Antitrust Division's antitrust case in the 1970's against the Bell system, however, some argued that the existence of FCC regulations displaced the antitrust laws and made them inapplicable. The courts emphatically rejected that challenge them, and the antitrust savings clause in the bill today makes clear that that question cannot be reopened. A strong, competitive communications sector is essential to continued American prosperity in the next century. Application of the antitrust laws is the most reliable, time-tested means of ensuring that competition, and the innovation it fosters, can flourish to benefit consumers and the economy. The antitrust savings clause makes clear, for example, that the antitrust enforcement agencies are not barred from scrutinizing, under appropriate circumstances, the home satellite broadcasting market, even though the new provision in section 205 of the bill gives the FCC exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services. While some might have been tempted to read that provision to mean that the antitrust enforcement agencies would not have any jurisdiction over these activities, the antitrust savings clause makes clear that that is not the case. The same is true of other provisions of the bill, including those concerning access requirements for commercial mobile providers--section 705--limits on telco-cable buyouts--section 302--and broadcast ownership--section 202--and the joint marketing of commercial mobile services--section 601(d). In each case, the antitrust laws will continue to apply fully. Continued application of the antitrust laws is also the rule where the Bell companies' entry into the long distance market is concerned. The fact that the Attorney General is given a defined role in the FCC proceeding to decide Bell entry does not in any way supplant or limit the separate applicability of the antitrust laws or the Justice Department's antitrust enforcement authority--either pre-entry or post- entry. For example, if a Bell operating company sought to enter long distance markets through a merger or acquisition, that merger or acquisition would be fully subject to review under the Clayton Act. Likewise, if a Bell operating company were to engage in anticompetitive conduct after being granted entry into the long distance market, the Antitrust Division would not be precluded from addressing that conduct through the antitrust laws. The importance of the antitrust savings clause is underscored by the decision to repeal section 221(a) of the Communications Act of 1934. That provision, a relic from the period when Federal policy sought to promote monopoly over competition, exempts mergers between telephone companies from antitrust review. That is an era I believe all of us agree should be put behind us, and the fact that this exemption has been eliminated in this legislation is another confirmation that the Congress intends for the antitrust laws to be the means by which free markets are maintained in telecommunications. Finally, the hearing of the Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, which I chaired in May 1995, confirmed the importance of competition to achieve lower prices, better services, and products, and more innovation in telecommunication markets for the benefit of consumers and our Nation. I am pleased, therefore, that this legislation preserves the role of the Antitrust Division in applying the antitrust laws--which have protected free enterprise for over 100 years--in the telecommunications industry. Mr. President, enacting legislation of this magnitude, where the stakes are so high for so many businesses and other interested groups, inevitably requires the resolution of many conflicts. I would like to commend all those who worked on this legislation and kept focused on the ultimate objective--replacing regulation and monopoly with healthy free market forces. This is the role that the Congress should play to assist this industry, as well as American consumers and the entire American economy. I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation. unfunded mandates

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Although I have reservations concerning the START II Treaty, I intend to support the resolution of ratification reported from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Many of my concerns have been addressed in the package of amendments the Senate adopted on December 22, 1995, which were drafted by the Arms Control Observer Group. In addition to a number of hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted two hearings on the military and national security implications of ratification of START II. The START II Treaty, signed by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin in January 1993, will hopefully contribute to the positive change in the relationship between the United States and the States of the former Soviet Union. If ratified and implemented by the United States and the Russian Federation, START II will represent a continuation of the unprecedented reduction of the strategic arsenals of both sides. But we must always keep in mind that reductions for the sake of reductions do not necessarily contribute to stability. Unless these reductions contribute to strategic stability, they can actually undermine our national security. If START II is implemented and complied with, I do believe that it will be stabilizing. If, however, its terms are modified to allow, for example, the retention of heavy, multiple- warhead ICBM's, then this agreement could actually be destabilizing. As I stated back in 1992, when the committee considered the military implications of ratifying START I, I believe that stabilizing reductions in nuclear weapons are in the best interest of this Nation and humanity. Whether START II will contribute to or undermine stability will also be determined by other factors. For example, the United States must fully exercise its rights to maintain a survivable and reliable strategic deterrent force. In my view, we must also begin to rethink the basic concepts underlying deterrence. As the sides reduce their forces below START I levels, we must be concerned about the long-term survivability of the force in an offense-only configuration. In my view, we must begin to modify our strategic policy to incorporate a more balanced mix of strategic offensive and strategic defensive forces. In the long run, as the cold war confrontation fades, we may even make a complete change to a defense dominant posture. The long-term value of START II also depends on the sides' complying with its terms. In this regard, there is reason for concern. Russia has continued, to a very disturbing degree, the Soviet pattern of violating or circumventing the terms of various arms control agreements. Russia's failure to implement the agreements reached at last May's summit meeting is yet another reason for concern. If ratified, fully implemented, and complied with, START II will achieve three principal objectives: First, the reduction of strategic nuclear warheads to a level at or below 3,500-- more than a two-third reduction over current levels; second, ban the deployment of multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles; and third, obligate Russia to destroy all its SS-18 heavy ICBM's and to destroy or convert all its silo launchers for these missiles. If this last objective is not achieved, however, the stabilizing impact of START II will be seriously eroded. During the Armed Services Committee's consideration of the military implications of ratification of START II, I raised a number of concerns, including concern about whether Russia would ratify the treaty with amendments that would allow them to keep their MIRVd ICBMs, in particular the SS-18's. I was also concerned by administration efforts to unilaterally implement START II reductions prior to Russian ratification of START II. To date, Russia has not ratified START II, and I am not sure when it will. Until this happens and it is clear that START II will be implemented by both sides, I do not believe that the United States should take any irreversible actions to go below START I levels. In September 1994, the administration concluded a review of U.S. nuclear policy and its nuclear force posture to determine the appropriate strategic nuclear force for the United States in the year 2003, when START II limits are supposed to be reached. The nuclear posture review [NPR] concluded that the United States would continue to rely on a ``Triad'' of strategic nuclear forces and a policy of nuclear deterrence to deter any future hostile foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear weapons, and as a hedge against a reversal in political reforms in Russia, which made START II possible in the first place. In essence, the Nuclear Posture Review recommended that the United States continue to maintain its nuclear triad, that it would maintain its mix of land, air and sea-based strategic nuclear delivery systems-- while reducing the number of warheads to bring the U.S. into compliance with START II provisions. However, that recommended level would be below the level authorized under START II. In addition to 20 B-2 bombers and 450-500 single warhead Minuteman III ICBMs, the NPR recommended that the U.S. triad include 14 Trident ballistic missile submarines versus 18 permitted under START II, and 66 B-52H bombers versus 94 permitted under START II. The NPR also directed DoD and DoE to maintain a nuclear weapons capability without underground nuclear testing and without producing fissile material. In order to accomplish this requirement, the NPR directed that a number of actions take place: development of a stockpile surveillance engineering base; and the maintenance of capabilities that include the ability to refabricate and certify weapons types, design, fabricate and certify new nuclear warheads (if necessary), and maintenance and support of a science and technology base. Mr. President, given budget constraints, I remain concerned about the ability of the United States to maintain an adequate strategic nuclear force that would enable us to deter a nuclear attack. With regard to the future nuclear stockpile, I am concerned about the ability of DoD and DoE to meet its supply responsibilities. Quite frankly, I do not see how they will maintain the stockpile without underground nuclear testing. As directed by the Nuclear Posture Review, the United States will continue to require and depend on its strategic forces for the foreseeable future to deter a broad range of threats. In order to do this, we will have to move away from an offense-only policy of deterrence, which will require the United States to work cooperatively with Russia. As I stated during the Committee's hearing on May 6, we must move beyond the mindset of the ABM Treaty that equates vulnerability with stability. If we are to continue reducing our strategic nuclear forces--which is already the subject of interagency discussions--we must integrate defense into our deterrence policy and break the linkage between such reductions and the ABM Treaty. I have been troubled by the Administration's careless linkage of START II with U.S. missile defense programs and the ABM Treaty. Although I certainly agree that there is a relationship between strategic offensive forces and strategic defensive forces, I believe that the Administration is dangerously misguided in its characterization of this relationship. Not only is ballistic missile defense not a threat to deterrence and strategic arms control; it is complimentary and may even be essential if we proceed with further reductions. There is no reason why the United States and Russia cannot agree on a stabilizing plan to transition from Mutual Assured Destruction, which is fundamentally still our unstated policy, to a world of assured security through defensive deployments. We must come to terms with the fact that the ABM Treaty is outdated and must be revised and eventually replaced. By constantly reinforcing the mutual vulnerability logic that underlies the ABM Treaty, this Administration has simultaneously reinforced those in Russia who are most insistent on maintaining their destabilizing strategic offensive forces. Rather than trying to hold on to the Cold War relationship, the Administration should attempt to nurture U.S.-Russian cooperation in the area of missile defense and defensive stability. Before closing, I would like to amplify for purpose of this debate, my deep concern about actions taken by the Administration in the various arms control consultative commissions. The role of the consultative commissions is to enable implementation of arms control treaties. The consultative commissions are to provide a forum for the parties to make technical and administrative changes to the Treaty so that the provisions of the Treaty can be implemented. Or, if there is a disagreement, to provide a forum for the parties to discuss compliance questions. However, over the past couple of years, the Administration has used the consultative commissions of a number of Treaties, such as the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and START, to make a number of changes that I would define as more than just technical or administrative changes. In fact, I view these changes as substantive in nature, modifying the Treaties in a way which changes the original understanding under which the Senate provided its advice and consent. The defense budget funds most of the costs of implementing arms control treaties, and as a result, to the extent it can, the Armed Services Committee has been monitoring these actions. As a result of some of these actions, the Committee has included language in the statement of managers for the defense authorization bills since 1993, requiring the Department of Defense to report to the Congress 30 days in advance of any agreement that would result in an increase in the costs of implementing the arms control agreements. DoD and administration efforts to inform the Congress prior to concluding these agreements, as well as recommending these changes, have been erratic at best. It is my view that the President should notify the Congress 30 days in advance of concluding an agreement in the consultative commission, any change to interpretations of provisions, or implementation modifications and obligations that result in increases to implementation costs, or differ from the Senate's understanding when it provided its advice and consent to ratification of the Treaty. As an example of what I am referring to, let me ask unanimous consent that a copies of two September 1994 letters regarding a policy agreement on implementation of inspections under START, from the Secretary of Defense be printed in the Record. Mr. President, even though I have concerns about a number of issues, as I stated earlier, with the inclusion of the Arms Control Observer Group amendments, I will support START II.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 17 nomination lists in the Air Force and Army, which were printed in full in the Records of September 19, 1995, November 28, 1995, December 4, 1995, and December 18, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we were able to get another Defense authorization bill, and I want to commend Senator Lott, Senator Warner, and Senator Cohen, who have joined with me on the conference committee to get this done quickly. We have a good bill. I suggest that we act on it and that it be the first thing we do. I do not think we need more than 45 minutes to decide; in other words, an hour and a half to complete this bill and sign it away. I hope it can be taken up at this time. I understood, generally speaking, that it would be taken up. I think people generally feel that it is to be the first thing taken up today.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one of the most famous institutions of the South is college football. For decades, southern colleges and universities have produced powerhouse teams that dominate bowl games and yield some of the most talented players that are to be found among professional football clubs. Without question, the Clemson University Tigers is one of the grand old teams of southern football, and Frank Howard was the man who became synonymous not only with Clemson football, but with Clemson athletics. It is with great sadness that I rise today to mark his passing, and to pay tribute to him as a coach, a role model, a man, and a friend. Frank Howard dedicated his life to Clemson University and its football program. He loved that school so much, that after he retired from coaching, he remained in South Carolina and continued to be an important part of Clemson University campus life. Not only did Frank attend virtually every Tiger home game, he maintained an office in the Jervey Athletic Center and was affectionately, and appropriately, given the title of ``Legend.'' During his career, Frank amassed one of the most impressive victory records in college football, fielding winning teams year after year, and capturing several Atlantic Coast Conference championships. In addition to his skills as a coach, Frank was a gifted recruiter, and that combination ensured that Clemson always had a team of enthusiastic, talented, and well coached players. Countless individual and team records were set by Clemson players during Frank's three-decade tenure at the University, and many of his players went on to become some of the most respected individuals to take to the gridiron in the National Football League. Frank was the first to admit that there was no secret to how he won football games: he believed in playing aggressive football. As he said time and time again, ``Blocking and tackling wins games.'' While Frank stood for little nonsense as a coach, as some thought him gruff, he was a man who truly loved his players and set an example for them to be individuals who not only truly loved his players and set an example for them to be individuals who not only had a commitment to winning, but to good sportsmanship as well. As any coach would be, Frank was proud of his players who went on to play professional football, and believe me Mr. President, there was no shortage of such individuals. Through the years, Tigers have played on probably every team in both the American and National Football Conferences. What separated Frank from many other coaches is that he was equally proud of his players who never made the roster of a pro team, but who contributed to the growth and success of South Carolina. Frank was always quick and pleased to note that many of his former players went on to become influential and respected leaders in professions as diverse as the law, medicine, business, academics, and religion. No doubt, their accomplishments are in large part attributable to the influence that Frank Howard had on them while they were young men. Mr. President, Frank Howard was once quoted as saying, When I die I want to be buried up there on that hill near the stadium. I want to be there so I can hear all them people cheering my Tigers on Saturday and where I can smell that chewing tobacco in ever corner of the stadium. Then I won't have to go to heaven. I'll already be there. I am pleased to note that as Frank desired, he will be buried on Cemetery Hill, where he will be able to watch over his beloved Tigers. While Frank is going to be buried in his version of heaven, I have no doubt that St. Peter ushered him past the Pearly Gates, and at this moment he is gathered around a chalkboard with the other greats of coaching, going over games and plays, and enjoying the praises of his peers for his career of accomplishments. Needless to say, Coach Frank Howard will be missed by his large circle of friends, tens of thousands of football fans, and a grateful State. We all send our heartfelt condolences to his widow, Ruth, and to the rest of Frank's family.