J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on Tuesday, November 21, the Presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia initialed a peace plan to end the fighting in Bosnia. The peace plan, if implemented and enforced by the parties would result in Bosnia being governed by two entities, the Moslem-Croat Federation, which would have jurisdiction over 51 percent of the territory, and the Serb Republic, which would have jurisdiction over 49 percent of the territory. Sarajevo will remain a united capital, which would fall within the territory of the Moslem-Croat Federation, along with its Serbian-held suburbs. On Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council voted to lift economic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro, and also to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and the other Yugoslavia Republics. The lifting of sanctions will only take place after the peace agreement is signed in Paris and Bosnian Serb military forces are redeployed behind a zone of separation. The Presidents of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia followed up the initialing of the peace plan in Dayton by forwarding identical letters to President Clinton vowing the support of their governments to the implementation and enforcement of the peace agreement and guaranteeing the security of NATO peacekeeping troops. However, not less than a week after Balkan leaders initialed this peace agreement, the Bosnian Serbs, led by Radovan Karadzic have demanded the renegotiation of the provisions regarding the future of Sarajevo. While in Sarajevo, Serbs residents are protesting the peace agreement that would place their neighborhoods under the control of the Moslem-Croat Federation. Along the Dalmation Coast, Croats are protesting the turnover of land in exchange for land along a Posavina corridor that would provide better security. Moslem-led Bosnian army soldiers entered a United Nations base in the Bihac enclave, manned by Bangladeshi peacekeepers and took equipment, including vehicles. There were also reports that Croat forces were burning and looting homes in northwestern Bosnia that is scheduled to be turned over to the Serb Republic. Mr. President, on November 8, the House and Senate leadership met with President Clinton to discuss the situation in Bosnia and the status of the negotiations in Dayton. At that time, I advised the President that I felt he had not convinced the American public, nor the Congress, that it was in the national interests of the United States to deploy United States military forces to implement or enforce the Bosnia peace agreement. I also advised the President that convincing the American public and Congress rested on his shoulders--the President needs to come before the American public and make his case. The President has not yet convinced the American public, nor the Congress, that the United States has an interest in securing, or ensuring, the implementation or enforcement of a peace agreement in Bosnia. He has not convinced the American public or Congress that European nations in the region where the fighting has taken place, and who would be directly affected if the fighting were to cross the borders of Yugoslavia, need the support of United States military forces. As a world leader, the United States should exercise its leadership by asking the European Community why it does not view it to be their responsibility to secure, or ensure a lasting peace in Bosnia; if necessary, why they do not employ the necessary military forces, as President Clinton has pledged to do, to implement the peace agreement. I respect the constitutional prerogatives of the President, as Commander in Chief, to exercise his authority to deploy U.S. military forces. However, the Congress has a constitutional responsibility to balance his check. As a Senator and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a responsibility to ensure that a thorough and public national debate takes place. I support the North Atlantic Alliance and believe that the United States should remain engaged in, and show leadership in NATO. I believe that the [[Page S 17518]] United States has obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. I also believe that the American public and Congress are willing to use U.S. military forces to defend U.S. national security interests. In an effort to convince the American public and the Congress, President Clinton will address the Nation this evening to defend the United States-brokered Bosnia peace agreement and describe America's national or vital security interests which warrant the need to deploy United States military forces to Bosnia. In short, he needs to convince the public and Congress that it is the proper course of action for the United States to deploy troops to Bosnia. Mr. President, it is imperative that President Clinton make the case for United States involvement in Bosnia to the American public and gain their support before any United States military forces are deployed to Bosnia. The President must be clear about United States objectives in Bosnia and the risks involved. The decision to deploy U.S. military forces and the length of time spent in the operation should not be based on Presidential politics. The decision to send U.S. military forces has to be based on clear and achievable objectives and goals, and a developed exit strategy.

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.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Glenn.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by our able majority leader on both subjects. He has shown leadership here, just as he has shown in so many other instances. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 1426 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the President pro tempore of the Senate and on behalf of the Senate, I want to express our appreciation to our able majority leader for the great work he has done in getting the Government back into operation and for accomplishing what we did over the weekend. Without his leadership, it could not have been done. We are very appreciative of all that he does for the Senate, and this is another incident of his outstanding leadership for this country.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the able Senator yield?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this bill is one of the most comprehensive and important bills for our Nation. It means a lot to all the States in this country. I want to commend Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his good work on this bill, and I want to especially commend the able Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his great work. He is chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways. This means a lot to our entire country, and what they have done here is going to improve the highway system of America. I just want to extend my highest commendation to them.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation for the way this worked out. I think it is satisfactory now to North Carolina and South Carolina. With the help of the able Senator from Virginia, this was able to come to pass.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which, for the first time in many years, proposes a budget that controls entitlement spending, restrains the growth of Government, and eliminates annual deficits. For years I have made speeches in this great Chamber, and cast my vote in support of a balanced budget. I have introduced balanced budget amendments in numerous sessions of Congress, including the 104th Congress. On July 12, 1982, a balanced budget amendment was brought to the floor. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was pleased to sponsor and guide that important measure to passage. On August 4, 1982, 69 Senators voted in favor of the resolution. While a majority supported it in the House, if failed to receive the necessary two- thirds vote. In March 1986, the Senate voted on another balanced budget amendment. It was unfortunate that the resolution failed by one vote. Earlier this year, the balanced budget amendment again failed by one vote. However, I am confident that we will yet pass the balanced budget amendment during the 104th Congress. With or without a constitutional amendment, this balanced budget act proves that the Congress can enact a budget which protects the health and safety of our Nation, provides quality Government services, and eliminates harmful deficits. This is a refreshing contrast to the unbalanced budgets proposed by the President. His budgets contain no plan to balance the budget, significantly increase the national debt, fail to restrain growth in nondefense Government spending, and propose dangerous reductions in national defense spending. Mr. President, such budgets are not acceptable alternatives. The Balanced Budget Act of 1996 reverses direction on those policies which are stifling our economy and burdening all Americans with an overwhelming national debt. It puts the Nation on track to reduce Government spending, eliminate annual deficits, and permits us to begin to reduce the national debt, which is now nearly $5 trillion. First, this bill controls the growth rate of Government spending. Federal spending continues to increase over the 7-year budget period, from $1.5 trillion in 1995 to nearly $1.9 trillion in fiscal year 2002. However, this spending growth is at a slower, more affordable rate, and below the growth rate of Federal revenues. By 2002, revenues will exceed spending. One would think, listening to this debate, that this budget drastically reduces or eliminates all Federal programs. For example, it has been argued by some that proposed reductions would destroy Medicare and Medicaid. This simply is not the case. Both programs grow at healthy annual rates. Without the proposed reforms, these programs would grow at unsustainable rates, resulting in dangerous consequences, even threatening the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund. Second, Mr. President, the balanced budget act reduces and eventually eliminates annual deficits, which is the amount Government outlays exceed Government revenues. Without this bill, annual deficits will continue to increase, exceeding $200 billion per year. By enacting this measure, annual deficits will begin a downward path and will be eliminated within the 7-year budget period. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a surplus by 2002, allowing us to begin reducing the national debt. The results of this deficit reduction, Mr. President, have been estimated to stimulate economic growth, reduce interest rates, increase employment opportunities, and result in a higher standard of living for all Americans. Mr. President, in addition to controlling Government spending, this balanced budget act addresses Government revenues. Under this bill, Government revenues will continue to increase. However, in contrast to the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act which enacted the largest tax increase in history, the balanced budget act will let American families keep more of what they earn. Let me emphasize, Mr. President, this bill provides tax relief for the middle class. Over four-fifths of the tax reductions of this proposal will go to those making under $100,000; nearly two-thirds go to those making under $75,000. Furthermore, after considering all the reforms of the earned income tax credit, the marriage penalty, and the child tax credit, working families with children will see their taxes decrease next year. The centerpiece of the revenue provision is the family tax credit, offering a $500 per child tax credit, for children under the age of 18. This credit is phased out for individuals with adjusted gross income over $75,000, or for married couples with an income over $110,000. In my State of South Carolina, this means that over 400,000 tax returns will be eligible to claim this credit, at a value of over $320 million. This is money directly in the hands of parents to spend for their priorities--child care, housing, and education--not sent to Washington to fund its bloated bureaucracy. Other provisions provide direct relief to America's families, including a $5000 adoption tax credit; marriage penalty [[Page S 17311]] relief; and a credit for student loan interest. The bill also contains revenue provisions which will increase savings and investment. The expansion of the individual retirement account will permit more Americans to save more money for their retirement years. The capital gains reduction will unlock existing capital assets, allowing capital to be reinvested. This will result in more jobs, higher wages, more benefits, and a more vibrant economy. Let me address the argument that the capital gains tax cut will go primarily to the rich. A study by the U.S. Treasury showed that nearly one-half of all capital gains were realized by taxpayers with wage and salary income of less than $50,000. Three-fourths of all returns with capital gains in 1995 are estimated to be reported by taxpayers with wage and salary income of $50,000 or less. Mr. President, let me reemphasize this point--capital gains tax relief will benefit all Americans. Mr. President, there are many other important and favorable provisions in the balanced budget act. The act reforms welfare by emphasizing work and responsibility. It preserves, protects and improves Medicare. It protects veterans' benefits and safeguards affordable education. Mr. President, I support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I vote ``yes'' for reducing the deficit; I vote ``yes'' for controlling the growth of Government spending; I vote ``yes'' for our families by reducing their tax burden; I vote ``yes'' for restoring the economic future of our Nation. Therefore, I will vote ``yes'' for this bill and encourage my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Order in the Senate, Madam President.

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, life does not often provide second chances, but the Congress is giving President Clinton just that. With this continuing resolution, we are providing the opportunity for him to right the terrible wrong committed by vetoing the previous continuing resolution and shutting down the Government. This resolution will allow the U.S. Government to reopen and remain open while Congress and the President resolve outstanding issues on the remaining appropriations bills and the Balanced Budget Act. As a Presidential candidate, and early in his Presidency, President Clinton told the American people that he wanted to balance the budget. Here is his chance to fulfill that pledge, since he has failed to send a balanced budget plan to Congress. President Clinton said he wanted to use Congressional Budget Office numbers. Here is his chance to commit to that. President Clinton recently stated that he raised taxes too much. The Congress will give him a chance to correct that mistake and fulfill his pledge for a middle-class tax break. Madam President, President Clinton's veto of the previous continuing resolution brought the Federal Government to a standstill. Here is his chance to right that wrong. President Clinton must put aside his reelection concerns and focus on his responsibility to govern. By agreeing to this continuing resolution, he can do the right thing, restore full Government services and put the hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who are facing the holidays without a paycheck back to work immediately. Congress and the President previously approved a continuing resolution which funded the Government through November 13. The Congress sought to extend it earlier this week, for the purpose of avoiding a shutdown of the Federal Government. We are giving President Clinton another chance to keep the Government operating and to fulfill his promise to balance the budget. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in complimenting Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the subcommittee for bringing this conference report to the floor. This has been a difficult conference for them and I congratulate them on their diligence and perseverance in arriving at this conference report. Mr. President, as I have indicated many times, these conference reports represent compromises made by both the House and Senate. They will never please everyone. There are items in this report that I believe could be better, but on the whole it provides the critical funds to ensure the continued readiness of our forces both in the near term and in the out years. Mr. President, we may soon have to vote on commiting our forces to maintain the peace agreement in Bosnia. Although I may object to sending the forces, I am confident that they will have the means and training to carry out the mission. I am confident of that fact because over the past years the Congress has provided the funds to ensure their capabilities. The conference report that we are considering today provides the funds to ensure our armed services can continue to fulfill their mission and the tasks that are placed on them by our Nation. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friends, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their dedication to and support of our Armed Forces. They have brought a sound conference report to the Senate and I urge the Senate to support them and this conference report. In closing, I want to say this: There is nothing more important to this Nation than to keep a strong defense. It means our very survival. We could do without a lot of things, many things. But we cannot neglect our defense, if we want to maintain this great Nation. Our Constitution provides this country with the greatest freedom of any nation in the world. It provides us with more justice, more opportunity, and more hope than any people have ever been provided in the history of the world. And we want to keep this. But, to keep this, we have to keep a strong defense. Again, I compliment Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for this fine report. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b), a notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice relates to the procedures for consideration and resolution of alleged violations of the laws made applicable under part A of title II of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1). Section 304(b) 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, Napoleon once said that ``An army marches on its stomach.'' While Napoleon was commenting on the need of soldiers to have secure and dependable supply lines, combat arms personnel also require a multitude of other support services to ensure they have the means to accomplish their missions. In the U.S. Army, a service of 495,000 men and women, one thinks of branches such as quartermaster, transportation, and finance when the role of ``support'' is mentioned. One support element that is largely unknown outside of Washington, DC, but is critical to the success and readiness of our soldiers, is the Army's Legislative Liaison Office. For the past 3 years, Maj. Gen. Jerry Harrison has headed this office, which represents the Army's interests on Capitol Hill. Jerry Harrison's 32-year Army career began with his schooling at the U.S. Military Academy, and has included some of the Army's key postings. His assignments brought him to many billets, both here and abroad, and include Germany, Korea, Washington, DC, and Vietnam, where his efforts in defending a firebase earned him a decoration for valor. His career assignments reflect a high level of professional competence and include valuable command time in some very visible positions, perhaps the most prestigious being his tour as commander, 2d Infantry Division Artillery. As a product of West Point, an institution respected worldwide for its high standards, General Harrison had instilled upon him the importance of education, and throughout his career, he sought additional civilian and military educational opportunities. A commissioned officer in the field artillery, he graduated from the field artillery basic and advanced courses; the infantry officer advanced course; the Command and General Staff College; and earned a master's degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He also returned to his alma mater to teach in the department of mechanics. Mr. President, today's warrior is an individual who is educated, fit, adept at many different tasks, and a patriot. Gen. Jerry Harrison certainly possesses these characteristics. As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to offer him my congratulations on a distinguished career, and I wish him good health and happiness in the years ahead. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for centuries, the Middle East has been a region plagued with strife, a land where days of violence are often more common than moments of peace, and a place where tragedy is almost routine. This past weekend, when a young Jewish extremist assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, he committed an act that managed to shock a region and a world that long ago became almost numbed to the seemingly eternal struggle between Jews and Arabs and the death and loss that animosity creates. By any standard, Yitzhak Rabin served his nation admirably. He was a patriot and a warrior who fought against the Axis powers during World War II, fought for the freedom of Israel, and fought against those who sought to destroy that nation in the years after its creation. He rose to high positions in the Israeli government, serving as Chief of Staff of the Army, Ambassador to the United States, Minister of Labor, Minister of Defense, and was in his second term as Prime Minister at the time of his death. Those accomplishments alone would have been more than sufficient to earn him the accolades of his fellow countrymen, but the journey he led his nation on for peace was one which justifiably earned him the gratitude of the world. It surely could not have been easy for a man who dedicated much of his life to defending his homeland to sit down with the man who had spent much of his life vowing to overthrow Israel. Nor could it have been easy for Yasir Arafat to sit down with a man who represented the government that the P.L.O. blamed for oppressing the Palestinian people. Yet, these two old adversaries recognized that the time for peace in the Middle East had arrived, and that it was necessary for them to set aside their differences and to forge an agreement that would allow their two peoples to co-exist. It was a courageous decision by both men, and one for which they were strongly criticized, but as Prime Minister Rabin pointed out, you do not have to make peace with your friends. I suppose that it is not surprising that a man who was a soldier, would die a violent death, but it is surprising that he would die at the hands of one of his own citizens, and it is perversely ironic that his death would come at a [[Page S 16919]] peace rally. While the death of the Prime Minister is nothing less than a tragedy that people throughout the world deeply mourn, his passing is an event that must not stand as an obstacle to the peace process. Yitzhak Rabin was a man who was willing to give his life so that the Middle East would be a stable and peaceful land. It is a legacy that all would do well to try and honor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is sometimes easy to forget just what an enormous task we ask of those who work in law enforcement. It is very easy, from the comfort of an office or a living room, to second guess the decision a police officer was required to make in a split second. I hope that people will take a moment to read and think about what Mr. Floyd and Ms. Felton said last month, and to reflect on the fact that being a police officer is not only difficult, it can be deadly. Exhibit 1.--Wreathlaying Ceremony Remarks (By Craig W. Floyd, NLEOMF Chairman) Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us as we commemorate the fourth anniversary of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. My name is Craig Floyd and I am the chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. On behalf of our board of directors, I want to welcome all of you here today. Nearly a year ago, three law enforcement officers were murdered at D.C. Police headquarters, just one block from this hallowed ground. It was a horrible tragedy that will not soon be forgotten. Shortly afterwards, Tony Daniels, who was then in charge of the FBI's Washington metropolitan field office, reflected on the shooting in a poignant commentary that was printed in the Washington Post. He said: ``There is no easy way to absorb the events of November 22, 1994. For all of us, I'm sure, the most difficult part of dealing with this tragedy is trying to find a reason for its occurrence--trying to make some sense out of a senseless act . . . We will never know what causes people to do the things they do; we are only left with the aftermath. Yet it is an inescapable fact that the law enforcement community lives in the shadow of death.'' Sadly, those words echoed over and over again this past year as we buried one police officer after another. Already this year, we know of 127 law enforcement officers across this country who have been killed in the line of duty. That represents an 11 percent increase over last year's figure for the same period. On average, one police officer is killed somewhere in America every 52 hours. One out of every nine officers is assaulted and one out of every 25 officers is injured in the line of duty. Across this country, there are nearly 700,000 law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line daily for the protection and safety of others. This memorial is a richly deserved tribute to that extraordinary level of police service and sacrifice. When this memorial was dedicated 4 years ago, these marble walls that embrace us here today contained the names of 12,561 fallen police officers. Since that time, we have added nearly 1,300 more. We could have simply allowed those fallen heroes to be buried and then forgotten. But, this nation valued the service and sacrifice of those officers far too much to cast their memories to the winds of time. We knew that, if given the chance, the voices of those fallen heroes need not be silenced by death. . . . Their deeds might even have more meaning. . . . And their lives would become the example for others. This monument gives them that chance to be heard, to be understood, to inspire. Each time a single corrupt or bigoted police officer is exposed, come here and listen to the condemnation expressed by thousands of fallen police heroes. Each time the resolve of our law enforcement officers is challenged, come here and understand just how much our officers are willing to sacrifice for the well being of others. Each time the constant criticism and second-guessing causes our police officers to think twice about the profession they have chosen, come here and be reminded that you are following in the footsteps of some of the bravest and finest individuals ever to walk the face of this earth. Intro to wreathlaying In a moment, a wreath will be placed here at the memorial to commemorate the fourth anniversary of this monument, and to honor the nearly 14,000 law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty. But, before we do that I want to take a moment to recognize all of the police survivors who have honored us with their presence here today. While we cannot undo their loss, we can remind them that they have not been forgotten. Their welfare is important to us all. At this time, I would like to ask all of the survivors of a fallen officer here today to please rise and be recognized. Since the last time we met to commemorate the anniversary of this monument one year ago, nine law enforcement officers have been killed in the Washington, D.C. Area. That matches the highest number of local police fatalities ever recorded in a 12-month period. Three of them died in a single incident. Last November 22, Metropolitan Police Sergeant Henry Joseph Daly, and FBI Special Agents Martha Dixon Martinez and Michael John Miller were savagely murdered in an unprovoked ambush at D.C. Police headquarters. On February 7, off-duty D.C. Police officer James McGee attempted to stop a robbery in progress. In a few terror- filled seconds, Officer McGee was accidentally shot and killed in a tragic case of mistaken identity. On April 26, Prince George's County Police Corporal John Novabilski was assassinated by a crazed killer while sitting in his marked patrol car. Less than 2 months later, that same killer murdered FBI Special Agent William Christian. Agent Christian, who was also gunned down while sitting in his car, was on a stakeout to arrest the man who killed him. On August 22, Loudoun County Deputy Sheriff Charles Barton was killed in an aircraft accident on the way to pick up a wanted felon. He was the first officer to be killed while on duty in the history of the Loudoun County Sheriff's Department. And, of course, the two latest fatalities occurred this month. D.C. Police Officer Scott Lewis was gunned down on October 6 in an unprovoked attack while aiding a burglary victim. Maryland state trooper Edward A. Plank was shot and killed just three days ago after stopping a motorist for a traffic violation. We have asked the immediate family members of these fallen officers, along with their agency escorts, to assist us with the presentation of the wreath. They have graciously accepted our invitation and will serve as representatives of all police survivors and law enforcers across the Nation. Leading our procession, we are very pleased to have the Assistant Attorney General of the United States Andrew Fois, who will be joined by members of the U.S. Park Police honor guard. Closing remarks I would like to close today's ceremony with a poem. It was written by a 16-year-old girl named Megan Hogan. Her father was a Minnesota police officer who was shot and killed six years ago. Megan's poem offers comfort to all of us here today: My father is now at rest For a safer place he remains A world of goodness and beauty A world without worry or pain. No fear will he encounter For a better place he'll be A place where the sick are healed And a place where the blinded eyes can see. My world has forever changed My life is not the same But close within my heart His precious face remains. I give him my tears And my prayers I send above I cherish all our memories Filled with happiness and love. He'll have someone to depend on His helping hand is there to lend For the Father shall be watching And in heaven he'll have a friend. The battle is faced head on Many obstacles yet to overcome But in the end, together This battle will be won! For the next six hours, a rotating police honor guard will stand vigil here at the memorial as a special salute to America's fallen officers. A reception will be held immediately following today's ceremony at the memorial visitors center at 605 E Street --two blocks to the right. Everyone is invited to attend. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's ceremony. Thank you all for coming. May God bless you and all of our Nation's police officers.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in recent months, there have been some disturbing accounts from throughout the Nation about police officers conducting themselves in an inappropriate manner while performing their duties. Regrettably, some members of the media, and people who wish to malign the efforts of law enforcement officers, choose to believe that the actions of a handful of rogue individuals are representative of the entire law enforcement community. That is simply not the case. As we all know, the job that lawmen and women do is not easy, as a matter of fact, it is one that is extremely dangerous, as well as physically and mentally demanding. It is a job that requires ordinary men and women to commit extraordinary acts on an almost daily basis. In many cases, the situations to which they are dispatched result in injury to officers, and in increasingly frequent cases, the lives of officers are lost. While law enforcement officers across America labor tirelessly and [[Page S 16917]] largely without thanks, the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial, appropriately located at Judiciary Square, guarantees that those who fall in the line of duty will never be forgotten. Each year, the names of the men and women killed while doing their jobs--keeping us safe-- are added to the Memorial. This past October 19th, the names of the 157 officers who were killed last year were placed on the grey Canadian Marble walls which form this solemn Memorial. As I have done many times in years past, I attended the wreathlaying ceremony held at the Memorial when the names of those killed over the past year were added to the rolls of their fallen comrades. During that ceremony, the Chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, Craig Floyd, and Sharon Felton, the widow of a police officer and a trustee of Concerns of Police Survivors [COPS], made some remarks that I thought were particularly poignant, in that they paid tribute to those police officers who made the ultimate sacrifice, while also reminding everyone in the audience of the challenges and difficulties facing an officer in this day and age. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Floyd's and Ms. Felton's remarks be placed in the Record following my remarks, so that my colleagues will have the opportunity to read and consider what they said that day.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate today, Thursday, November 2, 1995. During my service in the Senate, I have always taken my duty to represent the people of South Carolina seriously and have been absent from Senate business only when necessary. With regard to the vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act on S. 1372, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, I am a strong supporter of increasing the earnings test and would have voted in favor of waiving the Budget Act.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, from 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 Records of March 8, April 24, September 5, 8, 19, October 10, 11, and 19, 1995, and to save the expense of printing again.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. That is right.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Grassley is not only an able and dedicated U.S. Senator, but he is also a progressive, scientific, and outstanding farmer. His colleagues in the Senate hold him in high esteem, not only for these qualities but also for his integrity, courage, and ability. We are proud of him and the great service he is rendering our country. I ask unanimous consent that the article contained in the Hill be printed in the Record so that others will learn more about this fine American.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding judge, a faithful naval officer, and a remarkable individual, the Honorable Robert E. Wiss, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Judge Wiss was 66 when he passed away on Monday morning, October 23, 1995. Judge Wiss was born in Chicago, IL in 1929 and graduated from the University of Illinois in 1950. He entered the service in that same year for 3 years of active duty but he did not end his military career at that point. He continued in the reserves and finally retired in 1988 as a rear admiral in the Navy's Judge Advocate Generals Corps. Judge Wiss was an excellent lawyer who received his degree from Northwestern in 1956 and taught law at John Marshall Law School. He was a member of numerous bar associations and was admitted to practice before over a half dozen courts to include the U.S. Supreme Court. He was truly a talented individual who loved the military, understood it mission, and believed in a strong national defense. He fully understood as well the need for the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Judge Wiss believed that the system was better than any other system of justice in existence but if change was needed, it should be pursued with vigor. If no change was in order, however, Judge Wiss did not tolerate anything short of complete adherence and respect for that system. In the eyes of those who knew him, he was a legal figure of great stature. In his own mind, he was never important, only extremely fortunate. All people mattered to him and his wife and children most of all. Our thoughts and prayers will be with his wife Charlene and his three daughters, Julia, Karen, and Laurel. He will be missed.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 which, for the first time in many years, controls entitlement spending, restrains the growth of Government and eliminates annual deficits. What a refreshing contrast this balanced budget reconciliation bill is to the budget proposals submitted over the past 2 years by the President. Those budgets enacted the largest tax increase in history, contained no plan to balance the budget, significantly increased the national debt, failed to restrain growth in nondefense Government spending and proposed dangerous reductions in national defense spending. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995 reverses direction on those policies which are strapping our economy and burdening all Americans with an overwhelming national debt. I remind my colleagues that the national debt now stands at over $4.9 trillion. Outlays for interest on the public debt is well over $300 billion per year, exceeding outlays for any other Government Department or program, except Social Security. Furthermore, failure to adopt this reconciliation act will result in annual deficits exceeding $200 billion for as far as can be projected. That is not an acceptable alternative. We must reduce Government spending. We must eliminate these annual deficits, and we must reduce the national debt. The Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act puts us on track to accomplish those objectives. Mr. President, I support the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. I vote yes for reducing the deficit. I vote yes for controlling the growth of Government spending. I vote yes for our families by reducing their tax burden. I vote yes for restoring the economic future of our Nation. Therefore, I will vote yes for this bill and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

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

Mrs. THURMOND

Mrs. THURMOND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that we all have a role to play in the battle against illegal drugs--and that no one is more serious about that fight than the people of Citrus County, FL. This week marks the eighth annual National Red Ribbon Celebration. We all know that it takes a solid community effort to steer kids away from drugs. This week, Citrus County businesses are joining in the effort in many ways. More than 14,000 ribbons, each symbolizing the wearer's commitment to a drug-free lifestyle, will be donated to the county's schools. Those who wear the ribbons will receive discounts for food and entertainment and other events will be built around the drug-free theme. Mr. Speaker, I commend all the committed people of Citrus County for making this year's events the biggest and best ever. They are giving the young people in Citrus County something to say ``yes'' to when they say ``no'' to drugs. The article follows: [From the Tribune, Citrus County, FL] Students and Teachers Turn Red When It Comes to Drugs--Wearers Display Commitment to a Drug-Free Lifestyle (By Gary Sprott) Crystal River.--Thousands of Citrus County students, teachers and school support workers will don red next week in the fight against drugs. The eighth annual National Red Ribbon Celebration, Oct. 23- 31, will feature a variety of school and community events. The celebration is sponsored by The National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth. About 14,000 ribbons, each symbolizing the wearer's commitment to a drug-free life-style, will be donated to the county's schools by Spring/United Telephone-Florida. ``The goal is to get the community involved so students see that prevention isn't just taught in class,'' said Linda Higdon, who coordinates the school district's drug-free school program. Schools and community groups will sponsor guest speakers, special presentations and healthy-lifestyle promotions. Higdon said the celebration strengthens the district's year-round efforts through its school resource officers and Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, also known as DARE. ``We've had really good participation and every year it keeps growing,'' she said. ``It's just not enough to tell kids what to say `No' to, you've got to show them what to say `Yes' to.'' Among the planned community events: Oct. 25: The Burger King in Inverness will offer a 10 percent discount on purchases for students and adults wearing a red ribbon. Publix and Winn-Dixie stores will use grocery bags decorated by the county's elementary school students. Oct. 27: The Roller Barn in Inverness will offer $1 off admission from 6 to 11 p.m. for students wearing red ribbons. The Parks and Recreation Department will sponsor a free Halloween costume contest from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., at the county auditorium in Inverness. The contest will be followed by a dance for middle-school students from 7:30 to 10:30 p.m. The dance is free for students wearing red ribbons or Halloween costumes, $1 for others. For information, call 795-2202. Oct. 28: Manatee Lanes in Crystal River will offer discount rates and free shoe rental from noon to 5 p.m. for students wearing red ribbons.