J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Sam Nunn is a man of integrity, ability, and dedication. I have been on the Armed Services Committee since 1959, and I was so pleased that he joined the committee when he came to the Senate. He rendered outstanding service as a member of the committee and as chairman of the committee. He is known as an expert on defense matters. Not only in defense; he has done a fine job in every endeavor since he has been in the Senate. This country would be better off today if we had more people like Sam Nunn in the Senate and the House as well as the judicial and executive branches. I am proud of his friendship, proud to have worked with him. He has been a great citizen of America and he has rendered outstanding service of which we can all be proud. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senate has to consider the revised Defense authorization conference report for fiscal year 1996. To the dismay of many Members, President Clinton vetoed the original bill on December 28 because of his objections to: Deploying a missile defense system able to defend all 50 States; certifying that deployments of U.S. forces under U.N. command and control are in the national interest; and, requiring the President to seek congressional approval of funding of unanticipated contingency operations. The primary reason for the President's veto of the bill was the administration's uncompromising opposition to deploying a system to defend the United States against ballistic missiles. The first duty of the President, as defined in the Constitution, is to defend America. Missile defense for America is a very achievable goal; it is hard to understand the opposition to providing protection for America. Mr. President, we are told that there is no immediate threat, but I can assure you that when we are threatened, it will be too late to start. We will then be at the mercy of an aggressor's blackmail, or worse. In order to complete action rapidly on the renewed conference without further diluting the national missile defense provisions, the conferees dropped the NMD sections from the conference report. Although the conference report we are now considering does not include language on NMD, Republicans remain determined to enact forceful NMD legislation in the near future. I remain strongly committed to the deployment of a multiple-site NMD system by 2003 and am working with Senator Lott, Senator Smith, Senator Kyl, and others in formulating a new bill. Mr. President, the requirement to submit a supplemental request of funds to pay for contingency operations was also listed as a reason for the President's veto. Unfortunately, President Clinton continues to deploy our military forces overseas for a variety of non-traditional military operations without due regard to cost or funding. These operations absorb significant human resources and funds which had been budgeted and appropriated for military readiness and modernization. Our provision would merely have required the submission of a supplemental request to ensure that readiness is maintained, while at the same time allowing the Congress to carry out its constitutional responsibility. Although I disagree with President Clinton's argument that such a requirement is unconstitutional, the conferees agreed to change this requirement to a sense of Congress. In his veto message, the President asserted that he thought his authority as commander in chief would be undermined by a requirement to certify that placing U.S. troops under operational control of the United Nations is in our national security interest. I do not understand how any President can possibly object to a requirement that explicitly states to the American people that any deployment of American troops is in the national interest. This was a broadly supported provision and the President's veto ensures that neither the Congress nor the President has seen the last of this common-sense legislation. While I disagree with the objection, since certification is an accepted way for Congress to exercise oversight responsibility, I do not want this important bill delayed by another veto. Further, if we had watered down this section as the President would have liked, the Congress would be abdicating its oversight responsibilities. For these reasons, the conferees concluded that it would be better to drop the section in its entirety. A separate bill will preserve the integrity of Congress' intention to ensure U.S. forces are placed under UN control only when it is in the U.S. national security interest. Mr. President, the House National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have moved swiftly to resolve the President's objections to the previous defense authorization bill because we recognize the importance of the bill to our Armed Forces. This conference report retains the many important initiatives of the earlier bill. The conference agreement contains a number of acquisition reform provisions which make it easier for Federal agencies to buy commercial technologies, while preserving the standard of full and open competition. Other initiatives range from improved quality of life for servicemembers and their families, to a full pay raise. Our Armed Forces should not have to wait any longer for the support they deserve. Mr. President, I am pleased to say we will now have the opportunity to express our support for our military men and women by voting to approve the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. I urge my colleagues to pass this conference report in a strong, bipartisan show of support for our Armed Forces. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the able ranking Member, Senator Nunn, for the great contribution he has made to this bill. Without his cooperation and counsel it would have been very difficult to get this revised bill enacted.

Mr. THURMOND. I agree with the statement of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. THURMOND. Let me assure the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that I concur with his views as to the importance in bringing about a smooth and timely change of command at the U.S. Strategic Command. To this end, I will take every step possible, in consultation with Senator Nunn, the ranking member on the committee, to expedite Armed Services Committee action on the nomination and seek Senate confirmation prior to the change of command scheduled in February.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, a Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Submission for Approval and Issuance of Interim Regulations, together with a copy of the adopted regulations, was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. These regulations relate to irregular work schedules and interns. The notice announces the adoption of the final regulation as an interim regulation on the same matters. The Congressional Accountability Act specifies that the Notice and regulations be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice and adopted regulations be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the new year started out sadly for the members, friends, staff, and alumni of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America when the president of that organization, Mr. Tom Garth, passed away. What is today the Boys & Girls Clubs of America can trace its history back to 1860, when the first Boys Club was opened in Hartford, CT. The streets of America's cities during that period were not friendly places, they were often dirty, crowded, and dangerous. The establishment of Boys and Girls Clubs gave young men and women not only a safe haven from the temptations and evils of urban settings, but also allowed them to pursue activities that developed their minds and bodies. While our Nation has grown and changed in many ways in the last 136 years, much remains the same. Contemporary America is a place with an abundance of obstacles for our youngest citizens. In our cities, drugs and gangs present a deadly lure to urban children; and in our suburbs, teenagers are easily bored by the stale environment which monotonous suburbs create and juveniles are often enticed into destructive activities. If anything, there is an equal, and perhaps even greater, need for Boys & Girls Clubs in the United States of today. As the president of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Tom Garth recognized that fact, and he worked hard to create an organization that would effectively reach out to today's children and offer them an attractive alternative to running afoul of the law. Mr. Garth began his career with the Boys & Girls Clubs as the games room director of the Boys Club in East Saint Louis, a city well known for being a tough town where opportunities for its citizens, especially its children, are scarce. Working in such an environment had a tremendous effect on Mr. Garth and would help influence how he would run the Boys & Girls Clubs of America when he became president of that organization in 1988. By all accounts, the tenure of Tom Garth was a successful period in the history of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Under his leadership, this organization established hundreds of new clubs in areas where positive activities for children were desperately needed, contributions to the organization increased, and most significantly, the membership of the organization has more than doubled, growing to include 2,300,000 boys and girls. This is an impressive accomplishment and a proud legacy for Mr. Garth to have achieved. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and it was a pleasure to come to know Mr. Garth over the many years he was with the organization. He was a man with a clear vision of what he wanted the Boys & Girls Clubs to be and what it would take to meet those goals. I am told that one of his last requests was to those who he left behind at the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, urging them to work to ensure that by the year 2000, 3 million children would be served by the clubs. That is a worthy goal and one which each of us in this Chamber would do well to support and help bring to fruition. Tom Garth was a man with tremendous drive and determination, and without question, he could have risen to head any of America's leading corporations. Instead of being motivated by the notion of a successful and financially rewarding business career, Tom Garth was motivated by a desire to make a difference and to make sure that the young people of the United States who needed a helping hand, a safe haven, or a role model, were given them. Through his 40-year career with the Boys & Girls Clubs, he gave millions of children more than a fighting chance to grow into productive members of society, and he has truly had a positive impact on this Nation through his work. He will be missed by all those who knew him, and we join his widow, Irene, in mourning his loss.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, earlier this month a tragedy befell James Brown, one of South Carolina's most famous sons and one of America's most beloved entertainers, when his wife Adrienne passed away. James and ``Alfie,'' as Adrienne was affectionately called, had been married for 10 years and were fixtures of Augusta, Georgia and the ``Georgialina'' area, a region of the Savannah River Valley which includes a number of cities and towns on both sides of the South Carolina and Georgia stateline. The two met back in 1981 when James Brown appeared on the popular syndicated television show ``Solid Gold''. A native of California, Adrienne was working in the entertainment industry at that time, contributing to the production of programs such as ``Days of Our Lives'' and ``The Young and the Restless'', as well as being employed as an artist by NBC television. After their courtship began, Adrienne became very active in Mr. Brown's entertainment ventures, and some have even credited her as being a key element in his becoming popular with a whole new generation of music lovers. Her passion for the entertainment industry and sense for business led her to become chief executive officer of Alfie Enterprises and the James Brown Dancing Stars, as well as the executive producer of the ``James Brown's Living in America'' pay-per-view television show. The Browns were married in 1985, and their decade long marriage was one that was filled with strong feelings between husband and wife, and many marveled at the bonds that held the two together. On January 16, after a memorial service that was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 800 family, friends, and admirers, Alfie Brown was laid to rest. The Charleston Post & Courier carried an article about the service which I think captures the esteem in which this woman was held and I ask unanimous consent that it be included in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, a Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Submission for Approval and Issuance of Interim Regulations, together with a copy of the adopted regulations, was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. These final rules implement the rights and protections of the following statutes made applicable by the Congressional Accountability Act: Family and Medical Leave Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employee Polygraph Protection Act. The final rules also implement regulations regarding the use of the lie detector tests by the Capitol Police. The notice announces the adoption of the final regulation as an interim regulation on the same matters. Additionally, these notices include the Board's recommendation as to the method of House and Senate approval of the final regulations. The Congressional Accountability Act specifies that the notice and regulations be printed in the Congressional Record. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the notice and adopted regulations be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last week, as most people visited family and friends, enjoying the especially festive days between Christmas and New Year's, hundreds of South Carolinians, including myself, were saddened to learn of the death of a truly remarkable and legendary person--Marshall B. Williams. For almost 50 years, this man faithfully served the people of the Palmetto State as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and the South Carolina Senate. His easy going style and desire to build consensus among his colleagues made him an especially effective legislator and helped to ensure his re-election year after year. As a matter of fact, his longevity in the South Carolina Senate earned him the distinction of not only serving as that body's President pro tempore, but the Nation's longest serving State official. While I have known the Williams family much of my life, I did not really come to know Marshall until 1928 when he visited his sister who lived in Ridge Spring, SC. About 20 years later, in 1947, we both found ourselves serving in State government. I had just been elected as Governor of South Carolina and Marshall was in his first term as a member of the House, being close in age as well as single, we quickly became good friends. It was a friendship that I valued and one which literally lasted a lifetime. Marshall was born of a different era and was the product of the values and traditions of the Old South, where manners and civility were stressed, and kindness was not an aberration. Such characteristics personified Marshall throughout his personal and public lives, he treated everyone with whom he came in contact with respectfully and kindly. His geniality and desire to build alliances and friendships earned him the respect and admiration of the men and women with whom he served, his constituents, and citizens throughout South Carolina. It also helped him to become an effective and strong leader within the South Carolina State House, where he chaired some of the most important and influential committees in the Senate. He was a figure who commanded deference and respect, both because of his position and seniority, and also because he accorded others those same courtesies. With his bow tie and gentle manners, someone who passed Marshall on the street might confuse him for a professor or a retired accountant rather than a strong and capable political leader. During his tenure in the South Carolina Legislature, Marshall helped to create an era of unprecedented growth and change for our State, helping South Carolina become one of the leading centers for commerce and industry in the Southeast. It takes an especially unique man to be born in an era when most of the citizens of our State had little formal education and earned their living by farming, and in later years have the vision to help prepare South Carolina to compete in the high-technology global marketplace of the 21st century. It was the work of a handful of leaders--of which Marshall Williams was one--in the public and private sectors, that prepared South Carolina to meet the challenges of the future and Marshall can be proud of the legacy he left. Mr. President, this past Saturday over 1,000 people gathered in Marshall's hometown of Orangeburg, SC, to pay their last respects to this man. I was among those who had the honor of eulogizing him and I began my remarks by noting that ``A giant has fallen''. This truly describes Senator Marshall Williams, he did so much for the State and Nation that created him. I know that his wife Margaret, and his children, his grandchildren, and a large circle of friends will miss Marshall a great deal, and I certainly join them in their mourning for this very special man. He touched the lives of thousands through his work and efforts, and South Carolina will never be the same place as a result of his passing.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1643, which will return all Federal Government employees to the workplace, and restore their paychecks. This bill will also reopen many important Government services which were closed due to President Clinton's veto of various appropriation bills. It is regrettable that the President has permitted the budget situation to deteriorate. Let me remind my colleagues that this Congress enacted a balanced budget plan which the President also vetoed. At that point, he assumed an obligation to provide the Congress with his budget proposal. Yet despite his many promises to do so, and the statutory requirement of November 20, 1995, President Clinton has failed to submit a real balanced budget. Mr. President, for years I have made speeches in this great Chamber, and cast my vote in support of a balanced budget. I have introduced balanced budget amendments in numerous sessions of Congress, including the 104th Congress. On July 12, 1982, a balanced budget amendment was brought to the floor. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was pleased to sponsor and guide that important measure to passage. On August 4, 1982, 69 Senators voted in favor of the resolution. While a majority supported it in the House, it failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote. In March 1986, the Senate voted on another balanced budget amendment. It was unfortunate that the Resolution failed by one vote. Last session, the balanced budget amendment again failed by one vote. However, I am confident that we will yet pass the balanced budget amendment during the 104th Congress and call on the President to support that effort. With or without a constitutional amendment, this Congress will enact a budget which protects the security, health and safety of our Nation, provides quality Government services, and eliminates harmful deficits. Mr. President, this bill brings employees back to work with back pay. It also provides targeted appropriations, through the end of fiscal year 1996, for critical Government services. Enactment of this measure will remove the issue of the Federal Government shutdown and allow us to focus on the larger objective of the balanced budget agreement. Mr. President, in closing, I commend the majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for their leadership and continuing efforts to resolve this important issue. I call on the President to keep his promise, to stop the gimmicks, and do the right thing for the future of our great Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on Thursday, January 4, 1996, the Nation paid its final tribute to a naval hero and patriot whose profound influence spanned more than 70 years and who laid down the blueprint of today's balanced fleet almost 40 years ago. I want to take this opportunity to honor the truly vital contributions made by that man, Adm. Arleigh A. Burke, who died on January 1, 1996, at the age of 94. He was buried on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD where he graduated in 1923. At sea and on land he was among the finest leaders that our country has produced. He stood watch on active service to our country for more than 40 years, rising from a meager farm at the foot of the Colorado Rockies to serve as Chief of Naval Operations for an unprecedented 6 years during the bleakest days of the cold war. Admiral Burke defined himself by an unwavering commitment to making the most of every opportunity presented and giving the best he had to every challenge that confronted him. When reminded of his earliest days of commissioned service, leading cleaning teams through the bilges of the USS Arizona (BB 39), he once observed, ``You have only one job. Very seldom do you get the job you want. Do the best you can with the job you have. If it isn't very important, do it better. When you do a job well, it makes itself important.'' This straightforward approach to life, combined with an unwavering commitment to those with whom he served, produced an exceptional naval officer and leader who, in the words of our current Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Boorda, ``-- defined what it is to be a naval officer: relentless in combat, resourceful in command, and revered by his crews.'' He was a man who received all the honors a grateful nation could bestow during his lifetime, yet chose for his burial marker the simple phrase ``Sailor'' to capture the sum and substance of his life. As commander of Destroyer Squadron 23, ``The Little Beavers'', during World War II, he carried the fight to the Japanese navy night after night in the Solomon Islands, earned the nickname ``31 Knot Burke'' from Admiral Halsey, and did as much as any man to turn the tide of battle against an Imperial Japanese Fleet that was flushed by an unbroken series of victories. Over a sustained campaign of 4 months, his squadron turned the tide of battle in the Solomons at Empress Augusta Bay, off Cape St. George. In ``The Slot'' and in 22 desperate engagements they produced a rich harvest of sunken ships and downed aircraft. As commander of the ``Little Beavers,'' Admiral Burke showed a remarkable ability to absorb the lessons of experience and then distill them into battle orders and combat tactics that inspired his men and took maximum advantage of every weapon at his disposal. He taught his squadron to fight at night, to fight with stealth through the use of torpedoes over guns, to strike quickly with maximum power, and to seize the initiative in battle and never let it go. He instructed his commanders concisely that, ``The difference between a good officer and a poor one is about 10 seconds'' and set their priorities clearly, ``If it helps kill the enemy it is important. If it will not help kill the enemy it is not important.'' Serving on the Chief of Naval Operations staff after World War II, Arleigh Burke played an extraordinary and vital part in clearly explaining the pivotal role the Navy could have in preserving national security during the cold war. He was not a controversial man by nature, but he never shunned it when the needs of the Navy and our country made their demands. During a postwar period of intense and bitter interservice rivalry that almost cost him his career, Arleigh Burke was a clear voice of logic and sanity in stating the case for a Navy that time and again responded to emerging cold war crises worldwide. It was my great privilege to have served as a member of the Armed Services Committee and worked with Admiral Burke during his tenure as Chief of Naval Operations. I speak from first hand experience when I reflect on the vision, forcefulness, intellect, and leadership that he brought to bear on his duties. From his razor sharp mind came the concepts of a balanced multi-mission Navy that could deal with crises on short notice yet stay for the long haul when needed, antisubmarine warfare and tactics as a top priority, the tremendous potential of nuclear power for naval ships, Polaris missiles at sea as an essential element of nuclear deterrence, and an unwavering commitment to ``training as we'll fight and fighting to win.'' Many able naval leaders have served our country well since Admiral Burke retired in 1961. I have worked with them all. They have been men of great talent and commitment, but they have all had the advantage of following a course that was clearly charted for them by Arleigh Burke, combat hero of World War II, a great naval leader of the cold war, a man who stepped down willingly when offered a remarkable fourth term as CNO to make way for younger men. He was a ``sailor's sailor.'' The Navy shares my admiration. It honored him in his lifetime by naming the most powerful class of surface combatant in the world, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer, for him. His legacy to the crew of the first ship was the simple observation, ``This ship was built to fight, you had better know how.'' I want to express my condolences to Mrs. Roberta Burke, Admiral Burke's widow and wife of 72 years. She cherished and sustained her husband in peace and war, a ``Sailor's Wife''. She has set a standard of service and commitment for thousands of naval families who must daily endure the stress of family separation that accompanies service at sea. Without the sacrifices that Mrs. Burke and many other spouses have shouldered, our Navy could not have been the force for freedom that has helped guard this country and support our allies for so many years. I had the privilege of working with Arleigh Burke for several years. I came to admire him immensely. I always knew where he stood and what he stood for. I was struck anew by his simple eloquence when I read the following words in his funeral pamphlet: ``Life has been good to me. I didn't did young. I wasn't killed in the war. I did most everything I wanted to do, and some things I didn't want to do. I had a job I liked and a woman I loved. Couldn't ask for more than that.'' Such a powerful summation of an extraordinary life. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the time and I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this bill will correct a problem created when President Clinton vetoed the 1996 Defense authorization bill. By so doing, he denied the full pay raise and the increase in the basic allowance for quarters provided in that bill. Military pay is again slipping further behind comparable civilian pay. This is happening at a time when our military personnel are increasingly being called upon to deploy in support of U.S. commitments around the world. Our troops deserve this raise and they should receive it without delay. At this very moment, and throughout this holiday season, our troops have been leaving their families in Germany and throughout the United States to fulfill a commitment made by the President to try to bring peace to Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia. These young men and women, and their families, deserve the best we can provide for them in every way. They should have a standard of living at least as high as they could expect in the civilian sector and they should have the very best in supplies and equipment. That is what our authorization bill was designed to provide for them. However, the President chose to veto that bill for reasons that are apparently more political than substantive. This was done as our soldiers were trying desperately to stem the flood of the Sava River just to get into Bosnia. A commander should always have the welfare of the troops paramount in his mind. A Commander in Chief should act similarly. Although he did not, this bill will help to restore some of what was lost in his veto. I appreciate the cooperation of Senators Dole and Stevens in the expedious consideration of this bill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Does that give the President a chance to sign the defense bill?

Mr. THURMOND. It is to his advantage and to the advantage of the troops and to the advantage of the defense for him to sign it.

Mr. THURMOND. May I make inquiry? As I understand, there will be no votes before Christmas, final vote on this treaty? Is that correct?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, yesterday I wrote to the majority leader to indicate that I intended to object to any time agreement or other agreement to conclude debate on the START II Treaty until the administration is willing to support the defense authorization conference report. In my letter to the leader I made it clear that I do not oppose the START II Treaty and will eventually support an agreement for expedited consideration of the treaty. I also indicated, however, that the administration and Senate Democrats have linked START II to the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Conference Report. While I strongly reject such linkage, given the administration's insistence that linkage exists, I now have no choice but to clarify what I believe is a misleading assertion. In order to clarify what the defense authorization conference report actually requires, and the fact that it contains nothing that could cause Russia to reject START II, I will require a significant amount of time. I had not intended to offer any amendments or declarations to the START II resolution of ratification, but it now appears as if I will be forced to. I simply cannot stand by while the administration spreads misleading information regarding the defense authorization conference report. Let us be clear about what does and does not threaten START II. START II will be ratified by the United States. The treaty enjoys overwhelming support in the Senate; there is no threat to it here. In Russia, however, there are many groups opposed to START II, including factions in the military and many hard-line nationalists. These Russians who oppose START II do so for reasons having nothing to do with anything in our conference report. But these same Russian opponents of START II have found all kinds of convenient excuses to justify their real objections, including opposition to the expansion of NATO and United States policy in Bosnia. What the administration has done by arguing that the ballistic missile defense provisions in this conference report threaten START II is to create yet another excuse for Russian opponents of START II. Those who have already decided to oppose START II will simply repeat the administration's rhetoric. If anything in the United States threatens START II in Russia it is the administration's own rhetoric. False assertions about how the defense authorization conference report violates the ABM Treaty are prepackaged Christmas presents for the Russian opponents of START II. The day after the Senate passed the defense authorization conference report, the chairman of the House National Security Committee and I wrote to the President to clarify that nothing in the conference report required or advocated a violation of the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of that letter written to the President, dated December 20, 1995, be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Let me clarify some of the false assertions about the defense authorization conference report. It has been asserted that the conference report requires the United States to deploy a multiple-site national missile defense system and even a space-based system. Both of these assertions are flat wrong. The conference report does require the Secretary of Defense to deploy a ground-based national missile defense system by the end of 2003. But nothing in the conference report requires the system to include multiple-sites. I continue to believe that the United States should ultimately deploy a multiple-site system, but nothing in this conference report requires such a system. Nor does the conference report advocate, let alone require, a violation of the ABM Treaty. The language in the conference report urges the President to undertake negotiations with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for deployment of a multiple-site national missile defense system. This and other provisions in this conference report envision a cooperative process, not unilateral abrogation. It has been asserted that there is no way to defend the territory of the United States from a single site, and therefore this conference report indirectly requires a multiple-site system. While I believe that a multiple-site system should be our goal, I must point out that the Army has concluded that it can defend all 50 States, including Alaska and Hawaii, from a single, ABM treaty-compliant, site. I would also point out that the Army's report on this subject was prepared at the request of the ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, despite all our efforts in conference to resolve concerns related to the ABM Treaty, we continue to hear the artificial argument that this conference report constitutes an ``anticipatory breach'' of the ABM Treaty. Since there is no requirement to deploy a multiple-site national missile defense system in this conference report, there can be no ``anticipatory-breach'' contained in it. But even if there were a multiple-site requirement, this would still not constitute an ``anticipatory breach''. Since there are treaty- compliant ways to get to a multiple-site system, just having a policy that points us in that direction cannot constitute an ``anticipatory breach.'' To quote the senior Senator from Alabama, who was a distinguished judge prior to coming to the Senate, ``While there are legal methods to deploy multiple sites within the framework of the ABM Treaty, there can be no anticipatory breach.'' It has also been argued that this conference report requires a space- based defense. The conference report does call on the Department of Defense to preserve the option of deploying a layered defense in the future. But there is no requirement to deploy any specific space-based system or to structure an acquisition program that includes space-based weapons. The conference report does increase funding for the space- based laser program. But this increase is merely to keep a technology program alive. We have asked for a report to illustrate what a deployment program would look like, but this is hardly a mandate to deploy. We can certainly debate the merits of what this conference report requires. But let's be clear about what it actually contains. If Senators want to debate the need for deployment of a national missile defense system by 2003, that is a legitimate debate. But to argue, as several Senators have, that this conference report requires deployment of space-based weapons and mandates a violation of the ABM Treaty is simply an act of disinformation. Senators are entitled to their views, but they owe the American people an honest statement of fact. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(b)), a Notice of Adoption of Procedural Rules, together with a copy of the adopted rules, was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. These rules, first published in the Record of November 14, 1995, govern the procedures for consideration and resolution of alleged violation of the laws made applicable under Part A of Title II of the Congressional Accountability Act. (P.L. 104-1). The Congressional Accountability Act specifies that the Notice and rules be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice and adopted rules be printed in the Record. Furthermore, the Office of Compliance has available, for review, a ``red-lined'' copy of the proposed rules which were published in the Congressional Record on November 14, 1995. This ``red-lined'' copy, along with the final rules, will enable interested parties to note the changes that were made.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the majority whip and the position he has taken and the remarks he has made. We must not let these veterans and others down. Now is the time to act. I commend the majority whip for the position he has taken. Amendment No. 3110

Mr. THURMOND. Will the majority whip yield?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to say that the Senate is well served with Bob Dole as majority leader. He has broken the record now for the all-time service. He is a man of integrity, ability, and dedication, and we are fortunate to have had him serve here. Back in his home State, he was a member of the legislature and a prosecuting attorney. He went into World War II, was seriously injured, almost killed, and one arm is still deficient. I say to you, I hope he will serve continuously until he becomes the next President of the United States. [Applause, Senators rising.]

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. That would be all right. I ask unanimous consent that the vote remain open until Members now at the White House have an opportunity to return to the Senate and vote.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield to the able Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. Senator Warner has been on the Armed Services Committee a long time. He is a very effective, able member. We are very pleased to have him here to speak for this bill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I yield to the Senator as much time as he may desire.