J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 for approval by the Senate. This conference agreement contains a broad range of authorities that are essential for the men and women who now serve in our Armed Forces, and for the effective operation of the Department of Defense. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this conference report, and the President will have the wisdom to sign it into law, because the important authorities it contains will significantly benefit our Armed Forces and the failure to enact these authorities will significantly disadvantage our troops. I am pleased that the House passed it today, 267 to 149. I want to make sure my colleagues and the administration clearly understand that this is a period of high risk and exceptional danger for our military men and women. This is not the time to make defense a political issue. I want to caution my colleagues and the administration in the strongest terms not to politicize this bill at a time when the effects of such an action will be amplified to a high degree for every individual soldier, marine, sailor, and airman who is now deploying as part of the implementation force in Bosnia. The authorization bill contains abundant important elements of authority for programs, systems, acquisitions, administration, and operations, and its passage will ensure that the Department will have the best possible chance to conduct its work as efficiently as possible. Likewise, failure to pass the authorization bill will encumber and disadvantage the Department unnecessarily. The President has committed more than 30,000 uniformed men and women to a hazardous and lengthy operation in the former Yugoslavia. I believe no one doubts that he is sending our troops in harm's way. Some of these people may lose their lives in hostile actions and accidents. The President and the Congress must make every effort to ensure that nothing--absolutely nothing--is done to jeopardize or impede them in any way. The Senate just passed a resolution to support these men and women unequivocally. The Senate has committed itself to providing our troops with all the necessary resources and support to carry out their mission and ensure their security. Although the dollar resources for defense are addressed in part in the appropriations bill, which has been enacted, the detailed guidance and authority to conduct the business of the Department of Defense, and to implement badly needed improvements, and to award new contracts and take care of families, are all contained in the authorization bill. I would agree with the recent observation of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who commented during the debate on veterans appropriations that he found ``a number of ironies, as I speak, American troops are being deployed in Bosnia. Every Senator who came to this floor, debating the deployment of our troops pledged support for them.'' Mr. President, I find it ironic that any Senator would consider blocking or voting against the defense authorization at this time or attempt to use this bill for political purposes. Politics must stop at the water's edge when our forces are deployed to a hostile fire area. Mr. President, it had been my impression that the Committee on Armed Services spent the last 3 months working in what had been its traditional bipartisan manner to reach a mutually acceptable conference agreement. I am now disappointed to learn at this late date that the minority have felt excluded from the conference negotiations. I want to assure my colleagues that was not my intent. I am disappointed that the bipartisan atmosphere of the committee may be about to be compromised and jeopardize the defense authorization bill. Mr. President, I would now like to turn to the substance of this bill. This agreement is in line with the priorities we established last January. I would summarize these priorities by saying there is a serious need to revitalize our Armed Forces in order to ensure our Nation remains clearly able to deter and, if necessary, to counter any future threat to stability and security. This legislation provides the direction and authority for that revitalization. The conference agreement authorizes a 2.4 percent pay raise for the uniformed services, including the 20,000 men and women who will be deployed in Bosnia and the thousands who will support them. If this agreement does not become law--and I want to repeat this, if this agreement does not become law--they will not receive this increase, and military pay will lag even more than it does already. I find it unfortunate that the administration would choose to block this pay raise for the men and women it is now sending to Bosnia. This agreement authorizes badly needed quality of life projects that are essential to family life and the retention of high quality people. It authorizes important improvements to military family housing, barracks, dining facilities, and work areas. Some critics of this bill would have us believe these authorities are unnecessary or extravagant. Mr. President, as we stand here today in the comfort of this Chamber, there are military men and women who are standing in the mud, exposed to rain and snow while they maintain their vehicles, because they do not have concrete hardstand in their motor pools. There are military men and women who are living in barracks that are substandard. Improvements will not be available unless this agreement is enacted. I want to repeat that: Improvements will not be available unless this agreement is enacted. This bill also contains the authority to reform the acquisition and procurement processes in accordance with the general effort to streamline government. These reforms will enable the services to obtain new equipment, supplies, and commercial products quickly and efficiently, instead of having to wait for the bureaucracy. It also reforms the process for managing the procurement of the information technology which provides our front-line troops with the latest and best information about their situation. I would like to point out that all the acquisition reform provisions contained in sections D and E of the bill will be lost if the conference agreement is not enacted. Federal agencies will not be able to acquire technology from the commercial sector rapidly. The administration will take the blame for failing to enable reform, despite their extensive rhetoric about how such reforms are needed. I am pleased that the conferees agreed that the military services have been underfunded and, in many cases, overextended, and that these problems had to be corrected. It is difficult to make the case, as some have tried, that the budget proposed by the administration is adequate in light of testimony by the Comptroller of the Department of Defense that defense is underfunded by approximately $50 billion. The General Accounting Office has concluded that the shortfall is actually closer to $150 billion. This legislation takes a step toward correcting this shortfall by authorizing $7 billion above the budget request. This is only a small amount of the deficiency. The additional budget authority is also necessary because the demands placed upon our military in the past 2 years have been greater than their budgeted requirements. These demands came at a time when the force was being reduced in the most dramatic drawdown since the end of the Second World War, and often exceeded the operating tempo of the cold war years. As a result, current readiness declined late last year and funds were moved or budgeted by the administration from future readiness accounts to current readiness accounts in order to prevent further movement toward a new hollow force. The Committee on Armed Services took note of the decline and added funds in this agreement to some current readiness accounts. However, I would like to stress again to my colleagues that the greater problem in readiness is not in the current readiness accounts but in modernization and procurement. These accounts remain significantly underfunded, and I am concerned that our Armed Forces may not have the modern, up-to-date equipment they will need to overmatch any potential adversary. Procurement funding has declined by 44 percent since 1992 and procurement is at the lowest level as a percentage of the budget since the years prior to the Second World War. This means that many basic essentials are not being bought in sufficient quantities to meet requirements and we are not investing today to achieve savings in the future. This also means the services must spend more of their budgets to keep older systems in operating order. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated there is a serious deficiency in procurement, and this agreement takes a step toward resolving that deficiency. Our Armed Forces were able to prevail in the Gulf war because they had superior equipment that had been developed, built, and fielded long before the threat of an Iraqi invasion emerged. Our military men and women were superbly trained because we recognized the inherent value of keeping our military trained and ready, not because we planned to fight a war with Iraq. This experience serves to reinforce the lesson that you cannot sacrifice future readiness in order to save current readiness. Both must be funded adequately, or both will be lost. That is the situation we confronted as we approached our work this year, and we took our time in order to get it right. By proceeding carefully and deliberately, the conferees ultimately achieved a responsible, thoughtful, and effective authorization bill. Although this legislation will serve as a roadmap to guide our national security into the 21st century, it is not all that I had hoped for, and our task is not yet finished. However, this legislation addresses future readiness requirements by adding substantial funds to procurement so that our forces will have superior, modern systems ready for any future conflict. The budget request raised grave concerns about the Navy's future force structure, but the conferees addressed the most serious shortages in the area of seapower. The funds requested for shipbuilding were at the lowest level since before 1950 and the number of ships, three, was the lowest number since the Great Depression. Next year's shipbuilding budget is even lower, and the Navy's 6-year shipbuilding plan will not sustain a fleet of 200 ships, let alone the 335 needed to meet the administration's own bottom-up review force structure goals. Shipbuilding budgets in the period beyond the 6-year plan will have to reach historical highs of $13 to $15 billion just to catch up. By utilizing the additional resources made available for defense by this year's budget resolution, the conferees were able to add $1.5 billion in order to double the number of ships that will be bought this year. There is now authority to procure six Arleigh Burke class destroyers, two amphibious ships, and a Seawolf submarine. Ships that were added are in the Navy's shipbuilding plan; those ships had been squeezed into the outyears by the severe constraints of near-term budgets. Buying these ships now will: save money through more efficient production quantities; resolve severe deficiencies in amphibious lift; sustain the industrial base; provide combatants needed for fleet and ballistic missile defense and long range land attack; and relieve extraordinary pressures on future shipbuilding budgets. This is a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. The committee also sought to sustain Marine Corps modernization. There is authority to procure essential components such as: LHD-7 and LPD-17; the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle; additional AV-8B aircraft; and the V-22 aircraft. Mine clearance and surface fire support are also strongly supported in this conference report, as is a wide spectrum of basic Marine Corps needs. Since the end of the cold war, the committee has emphasized programs that would counter the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The conference report would authorize funds for the counterproliferation support program. The nerve gas attacks in Japan and the bombing in Oklahoma this year highlight the need to protect not only our military personnel, but also our citizens within the United States, against the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist organizations or trans- national groups. Now more than ever, our U.S. military relies on space to sustain a broad mix of space- and ground-based capabilities to meet multiservice and joint warfighting requirements. These funds would accelerate the development and deployment of essential military technologies and capabilities to combat nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. The conference report would require the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and other appropriate Government agencies to report to Congress on their military and civil defense preparedness to respond to these emergencies. The conference report would also authorize the Department of Defense to provide assistance in the form of training facilities, sensors, protective clothing, antidotes, and other materials and expertise to Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies. In the area of arms control, the conference report authorizes funds that would enable the United States to meet its treaty obligations to destroy or dismantle chemical and strategic nuclear weapons and material, as well as provide $300 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, to aid the destruction of nuclear and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union. On the question of theater missile defense demarcation, the conference outcome is virtually identical to the Senate-passed provision. This should alleviate concerns about constraining the President's prerogatives in negotiations while fulfilling the constitutional responsibility of Congress to review the results of those negotiations. I believe we have addressed all the concerns of the administration and the minority conferees. On national missile defense, the conference agreement strikes a balance between opposing views. The administration and others have argued that requiring deployment of a multiple-site national missile defense system by a date certain would constitute an anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty. Although I do not agree with this argument, the conferees attempted to satisfy this concern. The conference agreement requires the Secretary of Defense to develop an NMD system that will achieve an initial operational capability by the end of 2003. However, we do not require that this be a multiple-site system, although it is clear that our ultimate goal is a multiple-site system. I am very disturbed to hear some talk about vetoing this agreement over the ballistic missile defense provisions, because I believe the conference outcome is balanced and fair. If this veto comes to pass, it will become clear that the administration's arguments over the ABM Treaty were merely attempts to block the deployment of any type of national missile defense system, to include one that complies with the ABM Treaty. At a time when we are about to deploy 20,000 Americans to Bosnia, I find it hard to believe that the President would veto this important bill simply because he does not want the American people to have a modest defense against ballistic missiles. In matters relating to readiness, the conferees agreed to an approach to reform the process of allocating and performing depot-level maintenance and repair. If this bill is not enacted, the administration will be throwing away its best chance to reform the process by which depot maintenance work is allocated and performed. The conferees also authorized funds above the budget request for base operations, real property maintenance, and recruiting. The section on Department of Energy national security programs contains numerous important provisions to strengthen the U.S. nuclear weapons program. These include $118 million above the request for stockpile management. It also directs DOE to modernize its remaining manufacturing plants in Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and South Carolina. Modernization is necessary to meet the near-term infrastructure requirements of the nuclear posture review and signals that the United States will maintain the capability to repair and refabricate our nuclear weapons stockpile. The bill provides $50 million for the first year of an initiative to provide a new source of tritium gas. Because tritium decays, and since we ceased production in 1988, we must complete a new production facility early in the next decade. The bill authorizes several stockpile stewardship initiatives at the three nuclear weapons laboratories in California and New Mexico, enabling us to determine whether DOE can maintain long-term confidence in our nuclear weapons without conducting underground nuclear testing. The bill also focuses resources on cleaning up the highest priority nuclear waste problems at the former nuclear materials production sites, and accelerating certain clean up schedules. It also funds the isolation and reduction of spent nuclear fuel rods, some of which are beginning to corrode. This legislation sends the message to DOE that the maintenance of a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, sized to defense requirements, continues to be the DOE's core mission and the primary reason for its existence. It also tells DOE to get on with real clean up at the highest priority nuclear waste problem sites. To continue on the topic of environmental stewardship, the agreement establishes uniform national discharge standards for vessels of the Armed Forces. This important environmental initiative will be lost if the bill is not enacted. Quality of life for military personnel and their families was an important priority for the committee. In the areas of personnel, compensation, and health care, the conferees authorized a 2.4-percent pay raise for members of the uniformed services effective January 1, 1996. We also authorized a 5.2-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters to close the gap between the current allowance and actual housing expenses. The conferees changed the 1996 military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment to be effective March 1, 1996 and paid on April 1, 1996. In 1997, the COLA will be effective December 1, 1996 and paid on January 1, 1997. In 1998, military COLA will conform to the civilian COLA date. I am delighted that we were able to restore the alignment of the military retiree and Federal civilian retiree COLA dates. This has been a priority of the committee since 1993.I want to acknowledge the contributions of my friend Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, for his help in making the COLA adjustment possible. However, neither the full pay raise nor the retiree COLA equity provision will take effect unless this agreement is enacted. We directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a dental insurance plan for members of the selected reserve, similar to the active duty dependent dental plan, with voluntary enrollment and premium sharing. We also authorized an income protection insurance plan for members of the ready reserve. With the cooperation of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we were able to adjust the automatic level at which service members enroll in the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Program to $200,000, effective April 1, 1996. The last time we adjusted SGLI was during the Persian Gulf war. Ironically, we need to make another adjustment to SGLI as we again deploy U.S. forces in harm's way. I sincerely hope that no family finds itself in a position to receive this increased benefit, but I am pleased that we were able to authorize the increase. However, it will not take effect unless this bill is enacted. The conferees also recommend $480 million above the budget request for military construction, particularly for military housing, mission- related facilities, and revitalizing infrastructure. The conference agreement establishes new authorities for the construction and improvement of military housing that will permit shared public-private funding in order to maximize opportunities at the lowest cost possible. This agreement also takes a major step toward a more streamlined government acquisition process. Provisions of the bill will enable greater access to commercial technologies for Federal agencies. These include relieving burdens on contractors who supply commercial items as well as giving agencies the ability to acquire new commercial products from the marketplace. This will result in savings to the taxpayer and create new opportunities for businesses. We have taken this major step in acquisition reform while maintaining the requirement that contracts be awarded using full and open competition. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services for their cooperation and wisdom in developing and approving this agreement. I extend my appreciation to the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, Senator Nunn, for his bipartisan work during the conference. I want to thank my staff director, Gen. Dick Reynard, and the majority staff for their fine work. I would also thank General Arnold Punaro and the minority staff for their contributions. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Limit it to 6 hours.

Mr. THURMOND. I just wonder if we could not get some agreement as to when the final vote will come.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 1530 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THURMOND. If the distinguished Senator will get back in touch with us.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Nunn has mentioned about the entire conference report being placed in the Congressional Record. That is correct. It was placed in the Congressional Record on Wednesday, December 13, 1995. I just wonder if we could not debate this bill tomorrow and Monday and have a final vote on Tuesday. Is there any objection to that? I just wanted to know.

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, myself, and others. For the past couple of months, I have made statements on the floor and in hearings conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee expressing my grave concerns over the commitment that President Clinton made to the Presidents of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia to deploy United States military ground forces to implement and enforce a peace agreement to end the fighting in Bosnia. I continue to have those concerns. To date, the Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted eight hearings on the situation in Bosnia and the use of United States military forces to enforce the Bosnia peace agreement. In testimony before the committee, administration witnesses and experts in the area of national security, foreign policy, and intelligence have stated that it is in the vital national interests of the United States to deploy ground forces in Bosnia to avert a wide- scale war in Europe to save NATO and maintain United States leadership in NATO and to preserve the good word of the United States. Mr. President, as I have stated before, as a superpower, I believe it is important for the United States to show leadership in matters of national security and foreign policy. I also support NATO and do not want to endanger NATO as a security organization which was largely successful in bringing the cold war to an end. I also believe that it is important to follow through with commitments. However, I will not rubberstamp a decision by the President, just because he has the constitutional authority to deploy military forces. The administration has testified that the President would proceed with the deployment of United States forces to Bosnia, regardless of the concerns expressed by Congress. Despite this testimony, I believe Congress has a constitutional responsibility to review decisions of this magnitude. In the conduct of that review, I have yet to be convinced by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, that there are vital national security interests that warrant the deployment of United States military forces to Bosnia; or that our national security is threatened. I am not convinced that the mission is clear, that the objectives of the mission are achievable, or that there is a clear exit strategy. I have great confidence in NATO's ability, under the operational and tactical control of the U.S. military, to manage the operation--more confidence than I ever had in the United Nations. However, there will be a number of non-NATO nations participating in the implementation force, a great number of them deployed in the United States sector. While they will be under the operational control of the United States military commanders, I have concerns about their perception or interpretation of actions by the people for whom they are supposed to be securing peace, and the paramilitary forces in the area who may not support the peace effort. This operation is supposed to be a peacekeeping action, and at the same time, a peace enforcement action, as necessary. I am concerned that there is great potential for disaster, despite robust rules of engagement, if there is not a clear understanding among all the parties in the sector, as to interpretation of military action, and what constitutes the use of force. Further, I am not convinced that United States military forces participating in the Bosnia peace implementation force will not get bogged down with nonmilitary activities such as providing assistance to international organizations. From reading the I-For mission statement, it is quite clear to me that the mission statement is ambiguous and unclear. Specifically, it states that I-For will not conduct election security, provide humanitarian assistance or conduct mine or obstacle clearing activities. At the same time, though, it says that members of I-For will assist international organizations in these activities, if requested. Mr. President, I supported lifting the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Moslems could protect themselves, and so the United States could avoid sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. The President and the international community repeatedly rejected the bipartisan effort to lift the embargo. I still support the idea that a stable military balance is necessary to enable Bosnia to defend itself. However, now that United States troops will be deployed in Bosnia, I have concerns for their safety, if the United States becomes directly involved in providing equipment, arms, training, and the logistics to the Bosnian Moslems. Mr. President, regardless of the outcome of this debate, I want to strongly emphasize my support for the U.S. military forces who have already been deployed to Bosnia and Croatia, and who may shortly be deployed to Bosnia to participate in the implementation force. I will be monitoring very closely the situation in Bosnia, so that we can ensure that our military forces can return to their families as soon as possible. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the concurrent resolution offered by Senator Hutchison, myself, and others. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe it is time for the Senate to join with the House in heeding the will of the American people by passing this amendment and sending it to the States for ratification. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of 105 organizations of the Citizens Flag Alliance, supporting Senate Joint Resolution 31, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the American people overwhelmingly support this proposed constitutional amendment Senate Joint Resolution 31. Poll after poll has shown that nearly 80 percent of all Americans favor legally protecting the American flag against acts of physical desecration. Forty-nine State legislatures have called upon Congress to pass and send to the States for ratification a flag-protection amendment. Three hundred and twelve Members of the other body have already voted for this amendment. This is not a partisan issue. Ninety three Democratic Representatives, nearly half of the Democratic Members of the House, voted in favor of this amendment. The Democratic leader, Dick Gephardt voted ``yes,'' as did 2 Democratic whips, 2 cochairs of the Democratic Policy Committee, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and 36 ranking committee and subcommittee members. It is truly nonpartisan. Here in the Senate, amendment cosponsors include both Republican and Democrats. Old Glory is not a Republican banner or a Democratic banner. The American flag is a symbol of our unity as a Nation--it represents all Americans, regardless of party or philosophy. Last Thursday, December 7, was one of those days which holds a special place in our history; the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is a day when we are particularly mindful of the unique symbolism of the American flag. The flag, which flies today and everyday over the remains of the U.S.S. Arizona, one of the ships sunk during the Japanese attack, and which has been preserved as a monument to those who perished in that attack, represents our Nation and all that it stands for; the freedoms and ideals that have inspired generations of brave Americans to fight, and in some cases, to give their lives, in its defense. More than 2,300 brave Americans made the ultimate sacrifice for that flag and the Nation it represents on that fateful day 54 years ago. The flag is the one symbol that unites our very diverse people in a way nothing else can, in war or in peace. Whatever our differences of race, ethnic background, religion, social or economic status, geographic region, politics, or philosophy, the American flag forms a unique, common bond among us. The American flag is more than a symbol of unity to the people of this Nation. For generations, it has served as a symbol of hope and of freedom to people around the world. For over 200 years, the American people enjoyed the right to protect one unique national symbol, their flag, from acts of physical desecration. This right was exercised by the Congress and the 48 States which adopted flag protection statutes, until two wrongly decided, 5 to 4 Supreme Court decisions took away that right. It is up to the Senate to decide whether to acquiesce in Supreme Court decisions which misconstrue the first amendment and leave our national symbol with no greater protection than an ordinary rag. I believe that protecting our flag against acts of physical desecration does not infringe on constitutionally protected freedom of speech. I believe that Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, and Justice Abe Fortas were correct when they wrote that the first amendment, which those distinguished jurists so passionately defended, does not bar Congress from prohibiting physical desecration of the American flag. Amending our Constitution is not an easy task, nor should it be undertaken lightly. With respect to enacting legal protection for the American flag, however, the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Johnson and Eichman cases make it absolutely clear that a constitutional amendment is the best approach. We have tried the statutory approach. In 1989, after the Johnson decision, Congress promptly enacted a flag protection statute; and the Supreme Court just as promptly struck it down in the Eichman case. I have great respect for my colleague, Senator McConnell, who proposes to substitute for this amendment a flag protection statute. We share the goal of protecting our flag from physical desecration. But I respectfully suggest to my colleague that his approach, however sincere and well intentioned, will not accomplish that goal. In light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, I believe that a constitutional amendment is the best method available to the Senate and the American people for restoring legal protection to our flag. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters dated October 23, 1995, from two distinguished scholars, Richard Parker of the Harvard Law School and Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law, on this point.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I hope Senators read this list of the Citizens Flag Alliance member organizations, like the AMVETS, the American Legion--not only the veterans organizations, but law enforcement organizations, religious organizations, and fraternal organizations all over this Nation, 105 of them. That is what I am putting in the Record. I hope the Senate will take occasion to read this list and that the Congress will pass this amendment without further debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the language included in this conference report which reprograms money to establish a Border Patrol training facility at the Charleston Naval Base. This announcement was made back in July of this Year after the Department of Justice completed a competitive evaluation of several active and former Department of Defense facilities. In August, Congress approved the reprogramming request that was sent by the Department of Justice for this facility. During conference on this appropriations measure, the committee voted by an overwhelming majority of 11 to 1 to put the Border Patrol training facility in Charleston. It is expected that this facility will train up to 2,400 agents over the next 3 years. Also, approximately 60 full-time instructors will be employed to conduct the training. Mr. President, Charleston is an ideal location for this facility. It is only about 2 hours from Glynco, GA, where the Border Patrol has its main training facility, and the naval base has readily available and convertible facilities to use for this project. The facilities, climate, and friendly community make Charleston an ideal location for the Border Patrol School.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the Democrats will not let us get beyond the motion to proceed on Senate Joint Resolution 31, the proposed constitutional amendment to grant power to the Congress and the States, the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. This is an important issue which should be submitted to the American people in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 31, a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. I am pleased [[Page S 18060]] to be an original cosponsor of this proposal. In June of 1989, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Texas versus Johnson which allows the contemptuous burning of the American flag. Immediately after that ruling, I drafted and introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the unfortunate decision. After bipartisan discussions with Members of the Senate and President Bush, the Senate voted on a similar proposal which I cosponsored. During this time, the Supreme Court ruled in United States versus Eichman that a Federal statute designed to protect the flag from physical desecration was unconstitutional. The Texas decision had involved a State statute designed to protect the flag. On June 26, 1990, the Senate voted 58-42 for the proposed constitutional amendment, nine votes short of the two-thirds needed for congressional approval. Opponents of this proposed amendment claimed it was an infringement on the free speech clause of the first amendment. However, the first amendment has never been construed as protecting any and all means of expressive conduct. Just as we are not allowed to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater or obscenities on a street corner as a means of expression, I firmly believe that physically desecrating the American flag is highly offensive conduct and should not be allowed. The opponents of our proposal to protect the American flag have misinterpreted its application to the right of free speech. Former Chief Justice Warren, Justices Black and Fortas are known for their tenacious defense of first amendment principles. Yet, they all unequivocally stated that the first amendment did not protect the physical desecration of the American flag. In Street versus New York, Chief Justice Warren stated, ``I believe that the States and the Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace.'' In this same case, Justice Black, who described himself as a first amendment ``absolutist'' stated, ``It passes my belief that anything in the Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense.'' Mr. President, the American people treasure the free speech protections afforded under the first amendment and are very tolerant of differing opinions and expressions. Yet, there are certain acts of public behavior which are so offensive that they fall outside the protection of the first amendment. I firmly believe that flag burning falls in this category and should not be protected as a form of speech. The American people should be allowed to prohibit this objectionable and offensive conduct. It is our intention with this proposed constitutional amendment to establish a national policy to protect the American flag from contemptuous desecration. The American people look upon the flag as our most recognizable and revered symbol of democracy which has endured throughout our history. I urge my colleagues to join the sponsors and cosponsors of this proposed constitutional amendment to protect our most cherished symbol of democracy. By adopting this proposal, we can submit this important question to the American people to decide if they believe that the flag is worthy of constitutional protection. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Congressional Record of October 27 and 31, November 7 and 8, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing with national security, foreign policy and intelligence experts, who were all former executive branch officials under Presidents Bush, Reagan, and Carter. All three witnesses supported deploying United States military forces to Bosnia to implement the peace plan because they believe it is critical to preserve the credibility and reliability of the United States as a world leader and as a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. While the three witnesses endorsed the deployment of U.S. military forces to implement the agreement, they also highlighted their concerns about the likelihood of disaster and questioned the ability of the implementation force to achieve any meaningful mission objectives. In fact, the witnesses all agreed that the best that could be hoped for would be to sustain the ceasefire for the time period that NATO forces are in the region. Last week, the President traveled to Europe to visit with our allies, and speak with the young men and women of the 1st Armored Division stationed in Germany who are to be deployed to Bosnia very shortly. One Sunday, President Clinton was briefed on the NATO implementation plan, and gave his conditional approval to the concept. Following that conditional approval, the President authorized the deployment of around 700 United States troops who will lay the goundwork for the arrival of the main body of the NATO Implementation Forces, who will deploy to Bosnia once the peace agreement is formally signed in Paris next week. President Clinton spoke to the troops, informing them of the United States national interests that warrant their deployment to Bosnia to enforce the peace agreement. The President assured the troops that their mission is clear, limited and achievable and that the risks to their safety will be minimized. According to the director for strategic plans and policy in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Wes Clark, all U.S. forces should be in the region within 30 days of the formal signing of the agreement in Paris on December 14. According to the Department of Defense, the overall concept of the mission of the implementation force will be to monitor and enforce compliance with the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement. The military tasks of the Dayton agreement include: Supervise the ceasefire lines and zones of separation; monitor, and if necessary enforce the withdrawal of forces to their respective territories within the agreed time periods; establish and man the 4-kilometer zone of separation; establish liaison with local military and civilian authorities; and create joint military commissions to resolve disputes between the parties. All implementation forces, NATO and non-NATO, will operate under NATO rules of engagement. Those rules of engagement will permit the right to use force up to and including deadly force for self-defense to protect against hostile acts or hostile intentions, and, in order to accomplish the mission. Despite a briefing by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as congressional hearings this past week with administration officials, I continue to have grave concerns and questions about the clarify of the mission, and whether the goals and objectives of the mission can be achieved within the limited deployment framework. I know that our young military men and women are well-trained, the best equipped in the world and ready to go. What I am most concerned about is whether all their training and equipment will have prepared them for the sniper fire, the landmines, the terrible terrain and weather in which they will have to live. I am also concerned about possible kidnapings that could occur and how our troops will be treated. Will they be treated as prisoners of war, or political or legal detainees. In 1945, United States military forces were sent into to an area near Tuzla to keep Yugoslavian partisan out of Trieste. We were not officially at war, but the partisans resented the presence of the U.S. forces and ambushed U.S. patrols and aircraft with sniper fire, landmines, and booby traps. It took 9 years for an agreement to be reached before the 1 year mission was completed and U.S. forces came home. Mr. President, there are already signs of dissensions among the parties to the agreement. The Serbs continue to press for a renegotiation because the agreement would require Sarajevo to come under control of the Moslem-Croat federation and Serbian civilians feel they will not be protected. Our French allies have raised concerns that their troops could become trapped if there is renewed fighting. Additionally, the United States is being viewed as being partial to the Bosnians as a result of their support and there is a feeling that United States military forces will not be impartial. As I stated earlier, in statements on the floor and in hearings, I continue to have grave concerns about the vital interests that have lead the President to commit U.S. military forces to implement this peace agreement. I am not yet convinced that we have a vital national interest in Bosnia that requires the deployment of United States military forces, or that our national security interests are being threatened. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Perry, Assistant Secretary Holbrooke and General Shalikashvili will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I intend to ask more questions about the mission, objectives of the mission and the timeframe, the exit strategy; why it is necessary to have over 60,000 heavily armed military forces with armored vehicles as peacekeepers; how the implementation forces will separate the opposing forces; and how the U.S. military forces will avoid taking on nonmilitary tasks, when it appears that the civilian humanitarian services and operations will take at least 6 months to begin operation. Mr. President, I do not intend to rubberstamp a commitment by the President. I will reserve final judgement until after the hearings have taken place, and then make a final decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, our Senate family lost one of our finest and most respected members yesterday with the passing of the former Senate Chaplain, Reverend Richard Halverson. As many in this body know, Reverend Halverson ministered to the spiritual needs of Senators, our families, and our staffs for many years. A man who was deeply devoted to his duties as a servant of God, and to his congregation, Reverend Halverson selflessly served the Senate and the Lord almost literally to the end of his life. Despite a lingering illness in his later years, the Reverend was never too tired or sick to spend time with someone who required his guidance and counsel. He was a man who always had a kind word and a positive thought to share with us. I remember, Reverend Halverson would often clip newspaper and magazine articles that he felt were particularly relevant to the issues of religion and morality and send them to Members. Along with these articles, he would include a thoughtful note offering his opinion on the author's thesis, a gesture that not only reminded us that the Reverend was looking after our spiritual well being, but that there are laws and directives as important as those found in the Constitution and code books that should dictate our behavior and conduct as leaders of the Nation. Reverend Halverson was so committed to the cause of restoring and maintaining righteousness in America, he was the only natural choice to author the foreward to the book Right vs. Wrong, written by my good friend and former Chief of Staff, Harry Dent. I had the pleasure of knowing Reverend Halverson throughout his entire tenure in the Senate, and I can attest that he was one of the most faithful, capable, and dedicated Chaplains to have served the United States Senate. Those of us who were here when Reverend Halverson retired last year felt this Chamber had lost a friend, those of us who are here today know the world has lost a kind and compassionate man. Reverend Halverson is survived by his wife Doris, and I hope that she knows that each of us joins her in mourning the loss of her husband. While her husband and our friend is gone, he has left a little something of himself with those who knew him and we will never forget the service he rendered, or the man he was.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, along with my able colleague Senator Simon, to introduce the Diabetes Research Act. Diabetes is a chronic, and often fatal, disease affecting more than 14 million Americans. Billions of dollars are spent annually to care for those afflicted by this disease. It is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States and a major cause of kidney disease, heart disease, amputation, and adult blindness. Scientists tell us that medical research holds a cure for diabetes, yet the problem persists. In February of this year, I attended the Capitol Summit on Diabetes Research where leading scientists from around the Nation presented a comprehensive plan to direct diabetes research to a cure by the turn of the century. Recent evidence indicates that we are on the verge of uncovering new prevention, screening, and treatment procedures that will dramatically improve diabetes therapy and lead to a cure in the very near future. The bill I am introducing today will substantially increase the funds available to the National Institutes of Health for diabetes research. I believe that at this critical juncture in the fight to end diabetes, it is imperative that we provide additional funding to our scientists who are on the verge of finding a cure. Every year, over $100 billion is spent caring for the 14 million citizens suffering with the complications of this devastating disease. This bill increases the authorization by $315 million for diabetes research. In light of the emotional and financial burden that diabetes brings to our country, I believe that this bill represents a prudent, invaluable investment in our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this critical legislation so that we can end diabetes, and end the pain that this disease brings to its sufferers and their loved ones. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(b)), a notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. This notice proposes rulemaking on the following statutes made applicable by the Congressional Accountability Act: the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Section 304 requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at 2:15 on Tuesday, it will be the leader's intention to begin consideration of S. 1396, the ICC sunset bill. Rollcall votes can therefore be expected during tomorrow's session.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 28; that following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Dorgan or designee, 45 minutes; Senator Thomas or designee, 45 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho to amend the Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure to allow convictions on a 10 to 2 jury vote. It is my belief that this change to the Federal rules will bring about increased efficiency in our Nation's court system while maintaining the integrity of the pursuit of justice. This legislation is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling concerning unanimity in jury verdicts, specifically in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the sixth amendment guarantee of a jury trial does not require that the jury's vote be unanimous. The Supreme Court affirmed an Oregon Court of Appeals decision which upheld a guilty verdict under an Oregon law that allowed a 10 to 2 conviction in criminal prosecutions. Mr. President, clearly there is not a constitutional mandate for the current requirement under the Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure of a jury verdict by a unanimous vote. The origins of the unanimity rule are not easy to trace, although it may date back to the latter half of the 14th century. One theory proffered is that defendants had few other rules to ensure a fair trial and a unanimous jury vote for conviction compensated for other inadequacies at trial. Of course, today the entire trial process is heavily tilted toward the accused with many, many safeguards in place to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Although majority verdicts were permitted during 17th century America in South Carolina, North Carolina, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, unanimous verdicts became an accepted part of common-law juries by the 18th century. Mr. President, I found it interesting that the proposed language for the sixth amendment, as introduced by James Madison in the House of Representatives, provided for trial by jury as well as requisite of unanimity for conviction. While this particular proposal was passed by the House with little change, it met a significant challenge in the Senate and was returned to the House in a different form. Later, a conference committee was appointed and reported the language adopted by the Congress and the States which reflects the current sixth amendment. The earlier House proposal requiring a unanimous jury verdict for conviction was considered and not made a part of the sixth amendment. For purposes of discussion of this legislation, I will quote the pertinent part of the sixth amendment: ``In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.'' The sixth amendment includes some features of common-law juries. However, the Supreme Court has admonished reliance on the easy assumption that if a given feature existed in a jury at common law in 1789, then it was necessarily preserved in the Constitution. So here we see the Supreme Court has noted specifically that all features of the common-law jury are not mandated by the Constitution. Mr. President, there may be a number of inferences to be drawn from the deletion of the unanimity for conviction requirement in the proposed sixth amendment. One point we cannot escape is the fact that a unanimity requirement was considered by our Founding Fathers and determined that it should not be constitutionally mandated. In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. at 156, the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the right to a trial by jury is to prevent oppression by the Government by providing a ``safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the biased or eccentric judge.'' Carrying this view further in the subsequent case of Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Supreme Court stated, ``The essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the commonsense judgment of a group of laymen'' Williams, supra, at 100. Juries are representative of the community and their solemn duty is to hear the evidence, deliberate, and decide the case after careful review of the facts and the law. Of course, this should be done free of intimidation from outside and within the jury. The Supreme Court has noted that a jury can responsibly perform its function whether they are required to act unanimously or allowed to decide the case on a vote of 10 to 2. There are cases where a requirement of unanimity produced a hung jury where had there been a nonunanimous allowance the jury would have voted to convict or acquit. Yet, in both instances, the defendant is accorded his constitutional right of a judgment by his peers. It is my firm belief that this legislation will not undermine the pillars of justice or result in the conviction of innocent persons. The American people, I believe, will strongly support change in the Federal rules of criminal and civil procedure to allow a jury conviction by a vote of 10 to 2. This change for jury verdicts in the Federal courts will also reduce the likelihood of a single juror corrupting an otherwise thoughtful and reasonable deliberation of the evidence. Mr. President, I hope the Congress will give careful and favorable consideration to this proposal and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.