J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a group of federal officers who carry out a vital mission and provide critical services, but are largely unknown to people not in the law enforcement community. I am referring to the men and women of the United States Park Police. An agency within the Department of Interior, the United States Park Police traces its lineage back to 1791 when then President George Washington established a force of ``Park Watchmen''. In subsequent years, the authority of what has become the Park Police has been expanded so that today, that department is responsible for providing comprehensive police services in the National Capital Region. Furthermore, they have jurisdiction in all National Park Service Areas, as well as other designated Federal/State lands. While you will find their officers in New York City and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, the bulk of the officers and duties of the United States Park Police are right here in the National Capital Region. Park Police officers provide a multitude of services ranging from patrol to criminal investigation and from counter-terrorism to helping to protect the President. They are responsible for patrolling and providing police services in 22% of the geographic area of the District of Columbia, which includes all the national monuments; as well as, Rock Creek Park, National Parklands in the Capital Region, and 300 miles of parkways in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The United States Park Police is a tremendous asset, but I am deeply concerned that due to a lack of adequate funding, it is an asset that is losing its edge. Make no mistake, I question not the leadership of the Park Police nor the brave men and women who serve selflessly as officers and support personnel in that agency. Chief Langston and his officers will do yeoman's work no matter how well or how poorly funded their agency is, they are professionals and committed to protecting the public. I am worried that the Department of Interior lacks a commitment to providing sufficient funds to the law enforcement operations that fall under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. The Park Police is now 179 officers below its authorized strength of 806 officers. Furthermore, it is an agency that loses approximately 50 officers a year either through retirement or lateral transfers. It is understandable that it is difficult for some Park Police Officers to resist the higher pay of other agencies, especially when you consider that over a 30-year period, a United States Park Police Officer makes approximately $135,429 less than what the average salary is for officers at other agencies in this area. In addition to being shorthanded, equipment, from the officers' sidearms to the agency's radio equipment is antiquated and in need of replacement. The Park Police needs our help. It is truly a shame that the Park Police is facing the challenges it is today and we are in a position to do something about it. The men and women who serve as Park Police Officers have not had a raise since 1990, and we should support legislation that will give them a much needed pay boost. In an era when it is harder and harder to attract qualified individuals into public service, let alone a life threatening profession such as law enforcement, it is vital we do something to reward those who already serve, as well as, to attract new officers to an agency that provides services that keep the Capital Region safe. It might sound cliche, but the United States Park Police is there when they are needed. They are there when someone suffers an emergency in the waters around Great Falls, they are on the parkways when someone is in need of assistance, and they are on the Mall keeping visitors to Washington safe. They were there when the tragic shooting took place in this building, and they landed their helicopter on the plaza outside the Capitol in a valiant attempt to get a wounded United States Capitol Police Officer transported to a local trauma center as quickly as possible. Giving the officers of the United States Park Police a raise is not going to solve all of that agency's needs, but it will help recruit and retain personnel. More importantly, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we are currently facing one of the worst blood shortages in history, and I implore the citizens of this fine nation to volunteer to be a blood donor. Across the country hospitals are having to postpone life saving operations because of the lack of blood. Just the other day, the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston had to postpone a liver transplant because it lacked the necessary blood supply to perform the surgery. This is simply not acceptable. On September 19, 2000, Dr. Bernadine Healy, president and CEO of the American Red Cross, made the following statement stressing the critical need for blood donations. I feel that it is essential that we heed Dr. Healy's advice, and I ask unanimous consent that her statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns and views as the Senate moves toward final passage of the bill extending permanent normal trading relations to the People's Republic of China. I have diligently listened to the debate in the Senate and have given careful consideration to all points of view. This has been a valuable debate. It has educated the American people and has provided the international community with a statement of American values and ideals. The intentions and actions of the Government of the Communist Party of China do give me concern. The record of China has been thoroughly discussed during this debate. There is no question that reforms are overdue to improve China's record related to human rights, religious liberty, environmental protection, and the conditions of workers. Furthermore, China's record on proliferation of weapons technology is dangerous both to the region and to the entire world. China's abuses of trade agreements has been well documented. Finally, the belligerence shown toward Taiwan has been disconcerting, if not alarming. Many amendments were offered to this legislation to address these and other issues. I supported many of those amendments, and am disappointed that the Senate felt it could not amend this bill, strictly for procedural reasons. Nevertheless, I must emphasize to the world community in general, and specifically to China, that the rejection of these amendments does not mean the United States is unconcerned about these matters. Given China's record, why should the United States grant permanent normal trade relations? I believe, that in the long term, Americans as well as Chinese will be better off as China joins the international economic system. There is no doubt there will be obstacles and slow progress in the short term. It will take years for the Chinese to fully open up their economy and develop the legal infrastructure that will facilitate trade and commerce. I recognize that China has made fundamental internal economic reforms, moving away from a Marxist state run economy and centralized planning. The liberalization of external trade should provide the next step in the process of giving the individual Chinese more choices. The overall effect will be that as the Chinese economy improves, Chinese workers will be lifted from poverty. This, coupled with the development of a legal framework for commerce, will lay the foundation for democracy and religious freedom. It is essential that China follow through on its obligations to the Chinese people to advance democratic reforms, to promote human rights, and to create greater economic equality for all its citizens. The road to democracy is paved with free markets. Free trade is the bridge to reach out to the Chinese. This opening of Chinese markets will be good for South Carolinians, specifically, and Americans, generally. In the long run, America's workers and farmers will benefit from improved trade with China and access to what is potentially the world's largest market. Passage of this bill will ensure a reduction in tariffs on American products. Chinese consumers will be able to obtain high-quality U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods and business services. With China's permanent normal trade status and eventual membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), there will be stronger incentives for China to honor its commitments to lowering trade barriers. Finally, the United States will have access to the WTO's dispute resolution process to arbitrate trade disputes and seek enforcement of agreements. In short, China will be required to ``play by the rules.'' Again, I do not expect all of this to go smoothly. But I do anticipate that opening economic doors will open other opportunities for prosperity and freedom for the Chinese people. As China develops a vibrant free market and a more open and democratic society, the Chinese people will be better off, American security will be strengthened, and the prospects for international peace will be greatly improved. Therefore, Mr. President, despite my many concerns, and realizing this is a long-term process, I support the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China. I appreciate that the bill also establishes a framework for monitoring trade agreements and for reviewing our relations with China. I strongly encourage the next administration to be more vigilant in addressing national security issues related to China. Finally, I am hopeful that expanding trade with China will provide opportunities for resolving our differences in other areas.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the dedicated efforts and valuable contributions of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas (``Tom'') Lee of the National Guard Bureau Counterdrug Directorate. There are few more insidious domestic challenges to the safety, welfare, and security of the United States than illegal narcotics. Point to any border region of our nation and you will find criminal organizations smuggling every drug imaginable into America. Beyond being a highly addictive and destructive substance, drugs bring crime into every community through which they pass. Stemming the tide of illegal narcotics into the United States must always be a priority of the leaders of our nation. For a number of years, the National Guard has played a critical and significant role in battling the drug trade in America through a variety of efforts. Whether it has been flying air support, providing translators, operating x-ray machines, doing youth outreach, or any of the seemingly endless other operations they participate in, the soldiers and airmen of the National Guard have been aggressively involved in supporting the counterdrug operations of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Though commissioned in the Field Artillery when he graduated from college, LTC Lee has significant experience in counterdrug operations. Over the past three-years, he has served as the Special Projects Officer in the Counterdrug Directorate, where he has worked closely with Members of Congress and their staffs on how the National Guard can help stop drug trafficking. As he has done in all his previous assignments, LTC Lee distinguished himself as an individual of selflessness who possesses a strong sense of service and an unflagging dedication to executing his duties to the best of his abilities. LTC Lee not only demonstrated an intimate knowledge of National Guard Counterdrug policy and operations, but of the broader efforts of federal and state governments. He always provided clear, concise, and timely information and he has been a true asset to the Guard and to the nation's counterdrug operations. I am confident that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are grateful and appreciative for the hard work of Lieutenant Colonel Lee during his tenure at the National Guard Bureau Counterdrug Directorate. He is a credit to the National Guard and he can be proud of both the record of accomplishment he has created and the high regard in which he is held. We wish him the best of luck in his new assignment and continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill which would have repealed the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America. Fortunately, the bill received a mere twelve votes. However, even the consideration of such an absurd proposal concerns me tremendously. I recognize that traditional values and institutions which uphold those values are under attack and considered out of date by some elements of our society. Unfortunately, the Boy Scouts of America is one of many fine organizations being challenged. The Boy Scouts embody the beliefs on which the very foundation of this country was built. Since its inception in the early 1900s, this fine American institution has taught the young men of our Country about the importance of doing one's duty to God, of serving others, and of being a responsible citizen, and has in turn provided this Nation with countless distinguished leaders. I find it disappointing that at a time when the United States is in critical need of organizations that teach our youth character and integrity, some would choose to attack the Boy Scouts of America. Few fail to recognize the hurdles today's adolescents face. Confronted by obstacles that were unimaginable in my day, Boy Scouts provides young people with the knowledge, self confidence and willpower to do what is right in difficult situations. I commend the Boys Scouts of America for its dedication to our youth, and reaffirm my commitment to its preservation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Hollings, to introduce legislation that will enable the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase up to ten acres of land for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center in Florence, South Carolina. This land is located within 150 feet of the Center's administrative offices. Part of it has been leased and used for agricultural research for almost 25 years. If these ten acres were to be developed commercially the Center's operations would be impaired substantially. This land will be used for agricultural research. The Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center focuses its research on the agricultural needs of farmers in both North and South Carolina. However, much of the work done by its staff benefits all U.S. agriculture. The Center undertakes basic and applied research with an emphasis toward total resource management. I would like to highlight just a few of its research programs in soil, water, and plant management. The Center's staff investigates the effects of soil erosion, non-point-source pollution, and animal waste disposal. Further, they work to develop better cropping systems for major field crops including cotton, corn, soybeans, and small grains; to identify high-value horticultural crops suitable for production on the soils of the coastal plains; and to improve cotton germ plasm. Mr. President, the Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center does outstanding work that is not only very important to the farmers of the Carolinas but to all our Nation's farmers. This land purchase is important to the efficient continued operation of the Florence Center, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Hollings, to introduce legislation that will enable the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase up to ten acres of land for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center in Florence, South Carolina. This land is located within 150 feet of the Center's administrative offices. Part of it has been leased and used for agricultural research for almost 25 years. If these ten acres were to be developed commercially the Center's operations would be impaired substantially. This land will be used for agricultural research. The Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center focuses its research on the agricultural needs of farmers in both North and South Carolina. However, much of the work done by its staff benefits all U.S. agriculture. The Center undertakes basic and applied research with an emphasis toward total resource management. I would like to highlight just a few of its research programs in soil, water, and plant management. The Center's staff investigates the effects of soil erosion, non-point-source pollution, and animal waste disposal. Further, they work to develop better cropping systems for major field crops including cotton, corn, soybeans, and small grains; to identify high-value horticultural crops suitable for production on the soils of the coastal plains; and to improve cotton germ plasm. Mr. President, the Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center does outstanding work that is not only very important to the farmers of the Carolinas but to all our Nation's farmers. This land purchase is important to the efficient continued operation of the Florence Center, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I rise today to express reservations about S. 2869, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and the larger issue of the impact of religious liberty legislation in the context of prisons and the military. One of the founding principles of our Nation involves the freedom to worship. I have always been a strong supporter of this most basic right. For example, for many years I have introduced a constitutional amendment to permit prayer in public schools, and I would be very pleased if we could pass that amendment. In the closing hours of the Senate before the August recess, the Senate considered the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which is essentially an attempt to change the way the courts interpret the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution regarding prisons and land use regulations throughout the Nation. Ever since the Supreme Court held the Religious Liberty Protection Act unconstitutional as applied to the states, supporters of this legislation have tried to reverse that decision. Just as the Religious Liberty Protection Act has been held unconstitutional as applied to the states and its legality is still unclear regarding the federal government, there are legitimate issues regarding whether S. 2869 is constitutional. Moreover, there are serious questions about whether this bill is good public policy, especially as it relates to the prisons and jails across America. I first wish to note what this bill is not. It is not directed at laws that intentionally discriminate against a particular religion or even all religions. We all recognize that laws that intentionally discriminate against religious groups cannot be tolerated, and the courts already routinely invalidate such laws. Rather, this bill is directed at laws that apply to everyone equally, but have the effect of burdening someone's exercise of his or her religion. It is this indirect impact that the supporters are trying to address. However, in the process, the bill is entirely inconsistent with the principles of federalism, and it creates significant problems in many areas. I would like to specifically address prisons. The safe and secure operation of prisons is an extremely difficult and complex task. I fear that establishing new legal rights for inmates through this law will only make that job more difficult and more dangerous. The Supreme Court under O'Lone and other cases established a reasonable standard for evaluating religious freedom claims in prison, balancing the needs of inmates and the institution. Then, in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act imposed a very difficult burden on correctional officials when prisoners made demands that they claimed were based on their religious faith. Although R.F.R.A. was held unconstitutional a few years later, the bill will again upset the balance. Applying this legislation in prison has the real potential to undermine safety and security. Inmates have used religion as a cover to organize prison uprisings, get drugs into prison, promote gang activity, and interfere in important prison health regulations. Additional legal protections will make it much harder for corrections officials to control these abuses of religious rights. One example of a successful prisoner lawsuit before R.F.R.A. was held unconstitutional concerns an inmate who refused to take a tuberculosis test in Jolly v. Coughlin. The New York prison system wished to prevent the spread of T.B. to staff and inmates, so it implemented a mandatory testing program to screen inmates for T.B. so the disease could be treated before it became active and contagious. The plaintiff refused to take the test based on his religious beliefs, and won. The courts permitted the inmate to violate this very reasonable health policy. This is a clear interference with prison safety and security. There is no excuse for courts to allow inmates to tell authorities what health policies they will or will not follow. This case is just an example of how S. 2869 has the potential to put courts back in the business of second-guessing correctional officials and micromanaging state and local jails. There should be deference to the expertise and judgement of prison administrators. These professionals know what is needed to protect the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. The possibilities for inmate demands for religious accommodation under S. 2869 are limited only by the criminal's imagination. As the Attorney General of Ohio said in a letter last year, ``We have seen inmates sue the states for the `right' to burn Bibles, the `right' to engage in animal sacrifices, the `right' to burn candles for Satanist services, the `right' to certain special diets, or the `right' to distribute racist materials.'' There was a large increase in prisoner demands and a rise in lawsuits based on religious liberty while R.F.R.A. was in effect. The Solicitor of Ohio testified a few years ago that there were 254 inmate R.F.R.A. cases in the Lexis computer database during the three years the law applied to the states. This does not include cases that were not included in the database, and some of the cases listed actually included many inmates because the cases were class action suits. Winning lawsuits will encourage inmates to challenge authority more and more often in day to day prison life, and S. 2869 will make it much more likely that they will win. However, even if a prisoner's claim fails, it costs the prison much time and money to defend, at a time when prison costs are rising. The new legal standard will make it much harder to get cases dismissed before trial, greatly increasing the diversion of time and resources. As former Senator Alan Simpson said during the debate on R.F.R.A. in 1993, applying this legislation to prisons will impose ``an unfunded Federal mandate requiring the State and local governments to pay for more frequent, expensive, and protracted prisoner suits in the name of religious freedom.'' Some have argued that the fact that S. 2869 must comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act solves any problems regarding inmates. Unfortunately, as the National Association of Attorneys General has recognized, this is incorrect. It is true that the P.L.R.A. has limited the number of frivolous lawsuits inmates can bring. However, under this new legislation, lawsuits that formerly were frivolous now will have merit because this bill changes the legal standard under which religious claims are considered. Because S. 2869 makes it much easier for prisoners to win their lawsuits, the P.L.R.A. will be of little help. Not all prisoners abuse the law. Indeed, it is clear that religion benefits prisoners. It helps rehabilitate them, making them less likely to commit crime after they are released. In fact, it is ironic that S. 2869 may actually diminish the quality and quantity of religious services in prison. If R.F.R.A. is any indication, requests for religious accommodation will rise dramatically for bizarre, obscure or previously unknown religious claims. These types of claims divert the attention and resources of prison chaplains away from delivering religious services. The great majority of inmates who legitimately wish to practice their religious beliefs will be harmed by this law. I am pleased that the General Accounting Office will be conducting a study regarding the impact of religious liberty legislation in the prison environment. We must continue to review this important issue very closely. Additionally, I wish to discuss my concerns regarding the effect of religious rights legislation in the military. While S. 2869 does not directly impact the Armed Services, the Administration considers the predecessor to S. 2869, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to be constitutional and binding on all of the federal government, including the military. I strongly believe that the military should be excluded from any legislation creating special statutory religious rights. In discussing religious rights, it is important to note that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution has never provided individuals unlimited rights. The Free Exercise Clause must be balanced against the interests and needs of society in various circumstances. Government interests are especially significant outside of general civilian life, and the military is the best example. Here, governmental interests are paramount for a variety of reasons that the courts have always recognized. The courts have always been tasked with balancing the rights of individuals against the interests of society. In this area, I believe the courts have struck a good balance. In Goldman v. Weinberger, the key legal authority on this issue, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its long-standing position and made clear that courts must defer to the professional judgment of the military regarding the restrictions it places on religious practices. The military, not the courts, generally should decide what is permitted and what is not permitted. This does not mean that soldiers have no religious rights under the Constitution, but the courts generally must defer to the professional judgement of the military on applying these rights in the military. This is essential because of the military's need to foster discipline, unity, and respect in achieving its mission of protecting America's national security. As the court in Goldman explained, ``The military is, by necessity, a special society separate from civilian society. . . . The military must insist upon a respect for duty and a discipline without counterpart in civilian life. . . . The essence of military service is the subordination of the desires and interest of the individual to the needs of the service.'' The R.F.R.A. entirely rejected this approach. It put the courts in the business of deciding what religious activities should be permitted in the military and what should not. It does this by establishing a very high legal standard, called the strict scrutiny test, that must be met before the government, including the military, may enforce a law or regulation that interferes in any person's exercise of their religious rights. Under this test, a restriction on religious practices is permitted only if it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. This is a very difficult legal standard to meet and is an unrealistic and dangerous burden for the military. However, under this law, the courts must treat all requests for religious practice under the same standard, whether it is the Armed Forces or anywhere else in society. The R.F.R.A. does not in any way recognize the special circumstances of the military. This is a serious mistake. There is simply no reason why the courts should be in the business of second-guessing how the military handles these matters. In the past, the Department of Defense has recognized this problem. A comprehensive Defense Department study of religion in the military in 1985 concluded that the ``strict scrutiny'' test should not apply to the military. It concluded that adopting this standard ``would be a standing invitation to a wholesale civilian judicial review of internal military affairs. . . . It would invite use of the results in civilian cases as a model for the military context when, in fact, the differences between civilian and military society are fundamental. Adoption of the civilian `strict scrutiny' standard poses grave dangers to military discipline and interferes with the ability of the military to perform its mission.'' The Armed Forces today fully accommodates religious practices. In fact, I have concerns about whether the Defense Department is too generous in what it is permitting on military bases today. For example, as reported last year in the Washington Post, Army soldiers who consider themselves to be members of the Church of Wicca are carrying out their ceremonies at Fort Hood in Texas. The Wiccas practice witchcraft. At Fort Hood, they are permitted to build fires on Army property and perform their rituals involving fire, hooded robes, and nine inch daggers. An Army chaplain is even present. More recently, I read about an ongoing case where a Marine soldier disobeyed a direct order against leaving his military base because the date fell on the new moon, a holy day for Wiccas, and he said he needed to get copper sulfate to perform a ritual. This is just the type of case that a soldier could win under R.F.R.A. I do not believe that the Armed Forces should accommodate the practice of witchcraft at military facilities. The same applies to the practices of other fringe groups such as Satanists and cultists. Racist groups could also claim religious protection. For the sake of the honor, prestige, and respect of our military, there should be no obligation to permit such activity. Members of some groups, such as the Native American Church and Rastafarians, use controlled substances in their religious ceremonies. The military today broadly allows the use of the drug peyote for soldiers who claim to be members of the Native American Church. Peyote, a controlled substance, is a hallucinogenic drug. According to a 1997 letter from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, peyote appears to cause an acute psychotic state for up to four hours after it is ingested. The long term effects of its use, especially its repeated use, are simply not known, including the possibility of flashbacks and mood instability. As part of the Authorization Bill for the Department of Defense, I am requiring that the Defense Department conduct a study on this drug. It simply has no legitimate place within our Armed Forces. This is an excellent example of the military going too far today in its efforts to accommodate religious practices. Another problem from the military's efforts to accommodate fringe groups is that it can harm recruitment. Last year, various religious organizations called for a boycott of the Armed Forces because of its accommodation of these fringe religious groups. The military is having significant difficulty today with recruitment for our all-volunteer force, and the accommodation of groups such as the Wiccas further complicates this problem. Without R.F.R.A., it is clear that the military could severely limit or prevent practices such as these if it wished. It is less clear exactly what limits the military can impose under R.F.R.A., to the extent that the law is constitutional as applied to the Federal Government. When I have raised concerns about these matters with Defense Department officials, I have been told that the military will not permit soldiers to practice beliefs that pose a threat to good order and discipline. Unfortunately, that is not the legal standard the Department is faced with under R.F.R.A. Under religious liberty laws, the courts make the decision based on whether the religious restriction is the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest, not whether the restriction is based on good order and discipline. Religious liberty legislation could cause many problems for the military that have not been considered. Although there have been few claims under R.F.R.A. in the military to date, this could easily change in the future. Soldiers who adhere to various faiths, including many established religions, could make claims that violate important, well- established military policies. For example, soldiers who are Rastafarian can claim protection to wear beards or dread-locks, and Native Americans can claim protection for long hair. Also, Rastafarians may claim an exemption from routine medical care that require injections, such as immunizations. Although it is my understanding that the military does not accommodate exemptions from grooming standards or receiving health care, soldiers could bring such claims and likely win. To date, inmates or guards in prisons have won cases similar to these in court, and there is little reason to expect that cases brought by soldiers would turn out any differently. Soldiers brought lawsuits in the 1960s seeking exemptions from immunizations and exemptions from work on certain days based on religious practices, but these claims failed under the deferential standard. However, under R.F.R.A., there are endless opportunities for religious practices to interfere in important military policies and practices, and it is much more likely that such cases would be successful. One such matter arose during the Persian Gulf War. At the time, the military imposed restrictions on Christian and Jewish observances and the display of religious symbols for soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia. This was important so that our troops would not violate the laws and religious decrees of the host nation. There was some talk of lawsuits against our military because of these restrictions. Although this matter arose before R.F.R.A. was enacted, such a lawsuit is much more likely to be successful today. In short, it is not in the best interest of our nation and national security for religious liberty legislation to apply to our Armed Forces. Decisions about religious accommodation should be left to the military, not the courts. I will continue to monitor this most serious matter. It is my sincere hope that the next Administration will recognize the seriousness of this issue and support excluding the military from legislation that creates special religious rights.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I rise to extend my unswerving support and deep appreciation to the United States Army Chaplain Corps on the occasion of its 225th Anniversary, which will occur this Saturday, July 28, 2000. Throughout the history of our Nation, the Army Chaplaincy has dedicated itself to enriching our soldiers' spiritual lives and ensuring the free exercise of religion. Many Chaplains and Chaplain Assistants have demonstrated their love for their fellow soldiers by risking their lives so that their comrades might live. I would like to acknowledge these dedicated individuals who have gallantly served in the Army Chaplaincy, and who continue to selflessly minister in the face of adversity, uncertainty, and anxiety so that soldiers might be brought closer to God. By their sacrifices, Chaplains and Chaplain Assistants have proven themselves in both peril and peace to love our soldiers, our Army, and our Nation above themselves. For this, our Nation is grateful. Again, I congratulate the United States Army Chaplains Corps for 225 years of loyal service and pray that it will continue to serve our Army until nations shall beat their swords into plowshares and war shall cease.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Men's Health Act of 2000. This legislation will establish an Office of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services to monitor, coordinate, and improve men's health in America. Mr. President, there is an ongoing, increasing and predominantly silent crisis in the health and well-being of men. Due to a lack of awareness, poor health education, and culturally induced behavior patterns in their work and personal lives, men's health and well-being are deteriorating steadily. Heart disease, stroke, and various cancers continue to be major areas of concern as we look to enhance the quality and duration of men's lives. Improved education and preventive screening are imperative to meet this objective. Mr. President, as a lifelong advocate of regular medical exams, daily exercise and a balanced diet, I feel strongly that an Office of Men's Health should be established to help improve the overall health of America's male population. This legislation is identical to a bill introduced earlier this year in the House of Representatives. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Men's Health Act of 2000. This legislation will establish an Office of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services to monitor, coordinate, and improve men's health in America. Mr. President, there is an ongoing, increasing and predominantly silent crisis in the health and well-being of men. Due to a lack of awareness, poor health education, and culturally induced behavior patterns in their work and personal lives, men's health and well-being are deteriorating steadily. Heart disease, stroke, and various cancers continue to be major areas of concern as we look to enhance the quality and duration of men's lives. Improved education and preventive screening are imperative to meet this objective. Mr. President, as a lifelong advocate of regular medical exams, daily exercise and a balanced diet, I feel strongly that an Office of Men's Health should be established to help improve the overall health of America's male population. This legislation is identical to a bill introduced earlier this year in the House of Representatives. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased that tonight the Senate is considering S. 2516, the Fugitive Apprehension Act. Senator Biden and I introduced this important legislation to help address the serious threat of federal and state fugitives. The need for it was clearly demonstrated in a hearing I held on this matter last month in my subcommittee. The number of wanted persons is truly alarming. There are over 38,000 felony warrants outstanding in federal cases. There are over one-half million felony or other serious fugitives listed in the National Crime Information Center database. Yet, this is far less than the actual number of dangerous fugitives roaming the streets because many states do not put all dangerous wanted persons into the database. As recently reported in the Washington Post, California has 2.5 million unserved felony and misdemeanor warrants, and Baltimore has 61,000. While violent crime in the United States has been decreasing in recent years, the number of serious fugitives has been climbing. The number of N.C.I.C. fugitives has doubled since 1987, and continues to rise steadily each year. Fugitives represent not only an outrage to the rule of law, they are also a serious threat to public safety. Many of them continue to commit additional crimes while they roam undetected. The bill would provide $40 million dollars over three years for the Marshals Service to form fugitive task forces with state and local authorities. The Marshals Service is the lead federal agency regarding this matter. Task forces combine the expertise of the Marshals Service in these specialized investigations with the knowledge that local law enforcement has about their communities. This teamwork helps authorities prioritize and apprehend large numbers of dangerous criminals. The legislation would also provide administrative subpoena authority, which would allow investigators to track down leads about wanted persons faster and more efficiently. Currently, the time it takes to get vital information, such as telephone or apartment rental records, through a formal court order can make the difference between whether a fugitive is apprehended or remains on the run. This bill has been endorsed by various law enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Association of Police Organizations, and the subpoena authority is supported by the Administration. This is an important step that we can take to help federal and state law enforcement address the serious fugitive threat that exists in our country. I ask consent to have printed in the Record a section-by-section analysis of the bill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 342 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a Senate resolution which authorizes and requests the President to designate the week beginning September 17, 2000, as ``National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.'' It is my privilege to sponsor this legislation for the 15th time honoring the historically black colleges of our country. Eight of the 105 historically black colleges, namely Allen University, Benedict College, Claflin College, South Carolina State University, Morris College, Voorhees College, Denmark Technical College, and Clinton Junior College, are located in my home State. These colleges are vital to the higher education system of South Carolina. They have provided thousands of young people with the opportunity to obtain a college education. Mr. President, these institutions have a long and distinguished history of providing the training necessary for participation in a rapidly changing society. Historically black colleges offer our citizens a variety of curricula and programs through which young people develop skills and talents, thereby expanding opportunities for a lifetime of achievement. Mr. President, through passage of this Senate resolution, Congress can reaffirm its support for historically black colleges, and appropriately recognize their important contributions to our Nation. I look forward to the speedy passage of this resolution.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words regarding the death of Senator Paul Coverdell. Winding its way to the sea, the Savannah River forms a natural boundary between South Carolina and the State of Georgia. Yet the river is not a barrier dividing these two states. Rather, its lakes, tributaries, and bridges bring the people of these two states together as neighbors and friends. As neighbors, we share many fine attributes of southern living and culture, agriculture, and the values that Americans hold dear. As friends, we work and play together, raising our families and supporting our communities. Today, I rise to pay tribute and respect to my neighbor and friend from Georgia, Senator Paul Coverdell. Senator Coverdell was my neighbor. He was more than just a colleague from a neighboring state. For the past eight years we have walked together and worked in the same corridor of the Russell Senate Office Building. Senator Coverdell was also my friend. Everyday, each of us looked forward to his warm smile, kind words, and expressions of care and concern. As I worked with him on regional issues, in the Senate Republican Leadership circle, where he served as Republican Conference Secretary, or in more general circumstances, Senator Coverdell always was thoughtful and considerate of others. Senator Coverdell leaves a great legacy. His life was dedicated to serving others and his Nation. After serving in the U.S. Army, he returned to Georgia and built the family business into a successful nationwide company. Elected to the Georgia State Senate, he was chosen by his peers to serve as Senate Minority Leader, a post he held for 15 years. In 1989, President Bush named him as Director of the United States Peace Corps, where he redefined the agency's mission to serve the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. Since his election in 1992, Senator Coverdell has worked hard in the Senate as a defender of freedom. He led the fight against international narcotics and terrorism. Understanding that freedom is nurtured by a well-educated citizenry, he introduced education reforms, and served as Chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Education. Senator Coverdell fought to protect the individual economic and political liberty of individuals and families. We mourn the loss of Paul Coverdell. We shall miss his companionship, but we will not forget the bond we had with him. Though his voice is silenced, we shall not forget the encouraging words he had for others. Though he now rests in peace, the impact of his good deeds will be felt for years to come. Shortly before his death, our former colleague Senator Everett Dirksen, responded to the question which each person faces. It is found in the Bible, in the book of Job: ``If a man die, shall he live again?'' (Job 14:14.) I quote Senator Dirksen's words published in U.S. News & World Report, November 8, 1965, p. 124: What mortal being, standing on the threshold of infinity, has not pondered what lies beyond the veil which separates the seen from the unseen? What mortal being, responding to that mystical instinct that earthly dissolution is at hand, has not contemplated what lies beyond the grave? What mortal being, upon whom has descended that strange and serene resignation that life's journey is about at an end, has not thought about that eternal destination and what might be there? If there be a design in this universe and in this world in which we live, there must be a Designer. Who can behold the inexplicable mysteries of the universe without believing that there is a design for all mankind and also a Designer? . . . ``If a man die, shall he live again?'' Surely he shall, as surely as day follows night, as surely as the stars follow their courses, as surely as the crest of every wave brings its trough. William Wordsworth, the revered poet, captured in verse a glimpse of this glorious plan and entitled his classic ``Ode to Immortality'': Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home: Heaven lies about us in our infancy! Paul Coverdell was a bright star in this world. Though it is now out of view, it is not dimmed. We take comfort that he has returned home, to his eternal destination. This day, my thoughts and prayers are with his wife Nancy, his family, his staff, and his constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for the fine job they have done.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is most unfortunate that the President has decided to delay the first federal execution in almost forty years. Mr. Juan Garza was a vicious drug kingpin who was found guilty of three murders and sentenced to death in 1993. He was also convicted of various drug and money laundering offenses. Of course, there is no way to know how many American lives he destroyed indirectly through his extensive drug trafficking into this country. He is just the type of criminal that the Congress had in mind when we reestablished the federal death penalty in 1988. His lawyers are not claiming he is innocent. Rather, they are making general arguments about the fairness of the death penalty, and the President is apparently sympathetic to this. Over the weekend, the White House confirmed that the President will postpone the execution for at least 90 days and maybe until after the November elections. The reason for the administration has given is that the Justice Department is still drafting formal clemency guidelines. Mr. Garza was sentenced to death 7 years ago, and his case has been tied up in appeals ever since. The Supreme Court decided in November that it would not hear his case, and in May a judge scheduled his execution for August. The Department has had more than enough time to prepare such guidelines. Of course, the President does not need any special death penalty guidelines to act. The President has the power to commute Mr. Garza's sentence or even pardon him if he wishes. The President should make his decision and not further delay an already extremely long process. This is consistent with this administration's treatment of the death penalty overall. Only steadfast opponents to capital punishment can argue that it is used too often in the federal system today. Last year, my Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing that discussed the federal death penalty in some detail. After becoming Attorney General, Ms. Reno established an elaborate review process at Main Justice to consider whether a U.S. attorney may seek the death penalty. She has permitted prosecutors to seek the death penalty in less than one-third of the cases when it is available. Also, her review permits defense attorneys to argue that she should reject the death penalty in a particular case, but it does not permit victims to argue for the death penalty. I hope the Department's new clemency rules will allow victims to participate in the process. However, victims should be allowed to encourage the Department to seek the death penalty in the first place. The death penalty is an essential form of punishment for the most serious of crimes. Yet, it has not been carried out in the federal system for 37 years. We should not continue to delay its use. When an inmate's appeals are exhausted, as they are in this case, the President should carry out the law.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding officer in the United States Air Force who is an individual we have each come to know over the past two-years--Brigadier General Paul M. Hankins. As those of us who work on national security matters know, General Hankins has been serving as the Deputy Director of Legislative Liaison, where he has worked closely with us on a variety of issues of great importance to the defense of the nation. As he has done in all his previous assignments, General Hankins distinguished himself as an individual of selflessness who possesses a strong sense of service and an unflagging dedication to executing his duties to the best of his abilities. General Hankins arrived at the job of Deputy Director of Legislative Liaison well prepared for the position. A graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, he is a career personnel officer whose assignments are a mix of operational, joint, and high-level staff duties. Included among his tours are assignments at Tactical Air Command, Air Training Command, Air Combat Command, and the Air Force Personnel Center. The General has also served previously in the Secretary of the Air Force's Office of Legislative Liaison and with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. He commanded the 6th Support Group at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, and he served as chief of the Air Force Colonels' Group. During the 106th Congress, General Hankins has been a valuable intermediary between the Congress and the Air Force on any number of vital matters. He always provided clear, concise, and timely information that was beneficial in supporting our deliberations on national security matters. Clearly, the leadership, professional abilities, experiences, and expertise of General Hankins enabled him to foster excellent working relationships that benefitted the Air Force and the Untied States Senate. On a personal note, I am pleased to point out that I have known General Hankins since his days as a young captain, when he first demonstrated his skills at building ties with the Legislative Branch. At the time, he was serving at Kelly Air Force Base near San Antonio when he met a young woman who was a member of my Washington staff and visiting that facility. To make a long story short, Paul Hankins and the former Donna Folse fell in love, had a whirlwind romance, and got married approximately one-year after they began dating. Today, they have been married for fifteen years and together, they have raised two fine children, Priscilla and Clark. The reward that the Air Force is giving General Hankins for doing a difficult and demanding job well is to give him an even more challenging assignment, solving the recruiting and retention issues facing the Air Force. Then again, given how the General has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to successfully meet and complete any assignment with which he has been tasked, it should not be surprising that the Secretary and Chief of Staff would select him to head-up this effort. I am confident that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are grateful and appreciative for the hard work of General Hankins during his tenure as Deputy Director of Air Force Legislative Liaison. He is a credit to the Air Force and he can be proud of both the record of accomplishment he has created and the high regard in which he is held. We wish the General the best of luck in his new assignment and continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, too often we take our independence for granted, forgetting that countless individuals paid high prices for the privilege of living in a free Nation. Many lost their lives and their families, not to mention their way of life. Recently I received some information from Major George Fisher, Georgia National Guard, regarding the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Upon having the Congressional Research Service obtain the entire article, I was informed that it had previously been entered in the Record by Congressman William L. Springer, Illinois, in July of 1965. The original article was written by T. R. Fehrenbach, an American historian. In light of the upcoming anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I believe that this article is worthy of printing again as a reminder of the sacrifices made for our freedom. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, ``What Happened to the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence.''

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity today to pay tribute to the late Keith Olgesby, who is being honored today through the passage of H.R. 2952, which redesignates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Orchard Park Drive in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ``Keith D. Oglesby Station.'' Mr. Keith Olgesby deserves this honor which this legislation bestows. The tragic and unexpected death of Mr. Oglesby last year shocked and saddened the community of Greenville. Postal employees, his peers, and customers have requested that Mr. Oglesby be remembered in the Greenville community by the designation of this U.S. Post Office in his name. I believe that this legislation honors his life as a public servant for his community and State. Mr. Oglesby contributed much to the improvement of the Greenville community and the State of South Carolina. He was the Postmaster of Greenville County for six years. During his lifetime and posthumously, he was awarded twice the Postal Service's top public relations honor, the Benjamin Award, given in recognition of community outreach accomplishments. Among his many community service activities, Mr. Oglesby hosted the First Day of Issue ceremonies for the Organ & Tissue Donation Stamp. He volunteered with the Salvation Army, the March of Dimes Walk America, and the American Cancer Society Relay for Life. He was a tireless worker and community activist. He was also honored as Volunteer of the Year in 1997 by the Greenville Family Partnership (an organization which aims to keep children safe and drug free). I believe that Mr. Keith Oglesby deserves this honor which this legislation bestows as he was a public servant who will always be remembered in his community and the State of South Carolina where he honorably lived and served. Mr. President, I also note today the passage of H.R. 3018, which designates various Postal facilities in South Carolina. These facilities are the United States Post Office located at 301 Main Street in Eastover, South Carolina, as the ``Layford R. Johnson Post Office''; the United States Post Office located at 78 Sycamore Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``Richard E. Fields Post Office''; the United States Post Office located at 557 East Bay Street in Charleston South Carolina, as the ``Marybelle Howe Post Office''; and the United States Post Office located at 4026 Lamar Street in (the Eau Claire community of) Columbia, South Carolina, as the ``Mamie G. Floyd Post Office.'' These individuals have made enormous contributions to their communities and states and deserve to be recognized by having a postal facility named in their honor. I thank the Senate for its support of these measures.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) Robert E. Hall, who will retire today, June 22, 2000. SMA Hall's service to our nation spanned more than 32 years, during which he distinguished himself as a soldier, leader, mentor, and advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Army. A native of Gaffney, South Carolina, SMA Hall enlisted in the U.S. Army in February 1968. During his more than three decades of loyal service to the nation, he has held and served in every enlisted leadership position from squad leader to command sergeant major. He is a combat tested leader, serving in Desert Shield/Desert Storm with the 24th Infantry Division Artillery as its command sergeant major. Before becoming the 11th Sergeant Major of the United States Army, he was command sergeant major of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. He also served as command sergeant major, 1st Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery, Fort Steward, Georgia; Commandant, 24th Infantry Division Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Fort Steward, Georgia; the 24th Division Artillery, Saudi Arabia and Iraq; the 2nd Infantry Division, Korea; and First U.S. Army, Fort Meade, Maryland. During SMA Hall's tenure as advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Army, he made individual soldiers' issues a priority, focusing on improving the quality of life for them and their families. He concentrated on providing servicemen and their loved ones with accurate and timely information so that they could make educated and informed decisions about their future in a transforming Army. His personal efforts provided significant assistance and helped to ensure the successful repeal of the REDUX retirement system. In addition, he helped lay the foundation for pay table reform. This was achieved through regular interviews with both internal and external media sources. He also testified and visited with congressmen more than 19 times during his tenure as Sergeant Major of the Army. In doing so, he established a reputation, trust, and rapport with Congress as a caring leader who conveyed the needs of enlisted soldiers. SMA Hall's distinguished 32-year career epitomizes the consummate professional soldier. But above all, he is a loving and caring husband and father whose service was enhanced by his wife, Carole, and their three children, Apra, Rea, and Jason. I am certain that my colleagues in the Senate join me in commending SMA Hall on his dedicated service to the nation and the United States Army, and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during World War II, countless individuals distinguished themselves while serving this fine Nation. However, few displayed the valor, leadership, and selflessness as our colleague Daniel K. Inouye and it is with much admiration that I congratulate him on what this afternoon will be a deserving receipt of the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the highest medal awarded by the United States and is reserved for those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, at the risk of their own life, to perform a deed of personal bravery or self-sacrifice. We have recently reached a point in U.S. history which has left only a handful of Americans who can personally recount the events that took place during World War II and even fewer who fought in this effort to free Europe from the plague of Nazis. Though history books attempt to give younger generations insight into the valiant deeds and the countless deaths which occurred during the Second World War, no words can convey the emotional tragedies and triumphs felt by the men and women who participated in this campaign. At the age of seventeen, Dan Inouye embarked on a life of public service. Using his knowledge of first aid, he volunteered to treat the earliest casualties of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This marked the beginning of Dan's exemplary service to his country. After turning eighteen, he enlisted in the United States Army's 442nd Regimental Combat Team. On the fateful day of April 21, 1945, outside a small town in Italy, Lieutenant Inouye made a decision which would change the course of his life. As he led his platoon of the 2nd Battalion up a ridge, they were confronted with heavy machine-gun fire, striking Lieutenant Inouye in the abdomen and barely missing his spine. Rather than risk the life of one of his men, the injured young officer went up against insurmountable odds, and crawled alone farther up the hill into the nest of machine guns. He struggled to stand up, pulled the pin from his grenade, and destroyed the closest group of machine guns. He continued up the hill, bleeding from his wounds, and struck the second enemy position. Upon reaching the third machine-gun position, Lieutenant Inouye attempted to throw a grenade, only to have his right elbow shattered by an enemy rifle grenade. However, this did not stop the determined lieutenant. Using his good left hand to throw the final grenade, he destroyed the enemy's position. He continued to fight until he was struck by a bullet in the leg, and though in excruciating pain, refused to be evacuated until his men were deployed in defensive positions. He eventually spent 20 months in hospitals after having his right arm amputated, and returned home a Captain with a Distinguished Service Cross, Bronze Star, Purple Heart with cluster along with multiple other medals and citations. In my long life, I have met few men who have displayed the extraordinary courage, disregard for self, and devotion to their country as Senator Dan Inouye. And though Dan gave above and beyond during his participation in World War II, he continued to serve this fine Nation through public service upon his return to the States. His commitment and concern for the welfare of others is reflected in his service in the U.S. Senate, and I feel honored and privileged to have the opportunity to serve with such a remarkable individual.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.