J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 223 years ago today, the United States was engaged in its war for independence. I note that the American Continental Army, now the United States Army, was established by the Continental Congress, just 2 years earlier on June 14, 1775. I express my congratulations to the United States Army on its 225th birthday. At the start of that war, American colonists fought under a variety of local flags. The Continental Colors, or Grand Union Flag, was the unofficial national flag from 1775-1777. This flag had thirteen alternating red and white stripes, with the English flag in the upper left corner. Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence, it was no longer appropriate to fly a banner containing the British flag. Accordingly, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a resolution that ``the Flag of the United States be 13 stripes alternate red and white, and the Union be 13 stars white in a blue field representing a new constellation.'' No record exists as to why the Continental Congress adopted the now- familiar red, white and blue. A later action by the Congress, convened under the Articles of Confederation, may provide an appropriate interpretation on the use of these colors. Five years after adopting the flag resolution, in 1782, a resolution regarding the Great Seal of the United States contained a statement on the meanings of the colors: red--for hardiness and courage; white--for purity and innocence; and blue--for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The stripes, symbolic of the thirteen original colonies, were similar to the five red and four white stripes on the flag of the Sons of Liberty, an early colonial flag. The stars of the first national flag after 1777 were arranged in a variety of patterns. The most popular design placed the stars in alternating rows of three or two stars. Another flag placed twelve stars in a circle with the thirteenth star in the center. A now popular image of a flag of that day, although it was rarely used at the time, placed the thirteen stars in a circle. As our country has grown, the Stars and Stripes have undergone necessary modifications. Alterations include the addition, then deletion, of stripes; and the addition and rearrangement of the field of stars. While our Star-Spangled Banner has seen changes, the message it represents is constant. That message is one of patriotism and respect, wherever the flag is found flying. Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent 19th century clergyman and lecturer stated, ``A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, and the history which belong to the nation that sets it forth.'' Old Glory represents the land, the people, the government and the ideals of the United States, no matter when or where it is displayed throughout the world--in land battle, the first such occurrence being August 16, 1777 at the Battle of Bennington; on a U.S. Navy ship, such as the Ranger, under the command of John Paul Jones in November 1777; or in Antarctica, in 1840, on the pilot boat Flying Fish of the Charles Wilkes expedition. The flag has proudly represented our Republic beyond the Earth and into the heavens. The stirring images of Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin saluting the flag on the moon, on July 20, 1969 moved the Nation to new heights of patriotism and national pride. Today we pause to commemorate our Nation's most clear symbol--our flag. An early account of a day of celebration of the flag was reported by the Hartford Courant suggesting an observance was held throughout the State of Connecticut, in 1861. The origin of our modern Flag Day is often traced to the work of Bernard Cigrand, who in 1885 held his own observance of the flag's birthday in his one-room schoolhouse in Waubeka, WI. This began his decades-long campaign for a day of national recognition of the Flag. His advocacy for this cause was reflected in numerous newspaper articles, books, magazines and lectures of the day. His celebrated pamphlet on ``Laws and Customs Regulating the Use of the Flag of the United States'' received wide distribution. His petition to President Woodrow Wilson for a national observance was rewarded with a Presidential Proclamation designating June 14, 1916 as Flag Day. On a prior occasion President Wilson noted: Things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who do and live under the flag. Flag Day was officially designated a national observance by a Joint Resolution approved by Congress and the President in 1949, and first celebrated the following year. This year then marks the 50th anniversary of a Congressionally designated Flag Day. It is appropriate that we pause today, on this Flag Day, to render our respect and honor to the symbol of our Nation, and to review our commitment to the underlying principles it represents. Today, let us reflect on the deeds and sacrifices of those who have gone before and the legacy they left to us. Let us ponder our own endeavors and the inheritance we will leave to future generations. Finally, as we commemorate the heritage our flag represents, may we as a nation pledge not only our allegiance, but also our efforts to furthering the standards represented by its colors--courage, virtue, perseverance, and justice. Through these universal concepts, We the People can ensure better lives for ourselves and our children, for these are the characteristics of greatness. In doing so, we can move closer to the goal so well stated by Daniel Webster at the laying of the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument on June 17, 1825. On that occasion he said: Let our object be our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. And, by the blessing of God, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of Wisdom, of Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever. I have long supported legislation which imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, burns, tramples upon, or physically defiles any U.S. flag. I have also supported a constitutional amendment to grant Congress and the States the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. I regret that earlier this year this Senate failed to adopt a Resolution for a flag protection Constitutional amendment. I am pleased that last year the Senate adopted a Resolution to provide for a designated Senator to lead the Senate in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States. This has added greatly to the opening of the Senate each day. Mr. President, today I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to take note of the history and meaning of this 14th day of June. We celebrate our Flag, observing its 223rd birthday, and the 225-year-old Army which has so proudly and valiantly defended it and our great Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 6 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague Senator Kennedy's amendment which would act on restoring the honor and rank of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. I have been working on this issue since 1985. In my opinion, Admiral Kimmel and General Short are the two final victims of Pearl Harbor. These men were doing their duty to the best of their ability. The blame directed at these two WWII flag officers for nearly six decades is undeserved. Neither Admiral Kimmel nor General Short was notified before the attack that Washington had decoded top-secret Japanese radio intercepts that warned of the pending attack. Despite the fact that the charge of dereliction of duty was never proved against the two officers, that charge still exists in the minds of many people. This perception is wrong and must be corrected by us now. History and justice argue for nothing less. Military, governmental, and congressional investigations have provided clear evidence that these two commanders were singled out for blame that should have been widely shared. The following are several basic irrefutable facts about this issue: The intelligence made available to the Pearl Harbor commanders was not sufficient to justify a higher level of vigilance than was maintained prior to the attack. Neither officer knew of the decoded intelligence in Washington indication the Japanese had identified the United States as an enemy. Both commanders were assured by their superiors they were getting the best intelligence available at the time. There were no prudent defensive options available for the officers that would have significantly affected the outcome of the attack. On numerous occasions, history has vindicated the axiom that ``victory finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan.'' Admiral Kimmel and General Short have been solely and unjustly rendered the ``fathers of Pearl Harbor.'' Responsibility for this catastrophe is just not that simple. It is extremely perplexing that almost everyone above Kimmel and Short escaped censure. Yet, we know now that civilian and military officials in Washington withheld vital intelligence information which could have more fully alerted the field commanders to their imminent peril. The bungling that left the Pacific Fleet exposed and defenseless that day did not begin and end in Hawaii. In 1995, I held an in-depth meeting to review this matter which included the officers' families, historians, experts, and retired high-ranking military officers, who all testified in favor of the two commanders. In response to this review, Under Defense Secretary Edwin Dorn's subsequent report disclosed officially--for the first time--that blame should be ``broadly shared.'' The Dorn Report stated members of the high command in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese messages that in their totality ``. . . pointed strongly toward an attack on Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December, 1941 . . .'' and that this intelligence was never sent to the Hawaiian commanders. The Dorn Report went so far as to characterize the handling of critically important decoded Japanese messages in Washington as revealing ``ineptitude . . . unwarranted assumptions and misestimates, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and followup at higher levels.'' They are eligible for this advancement in rank by token of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, which authorizes retirement at highest wartime rank. All eligible officers have benefited. All except for two: Admiral Kimmel and General Short. This advancement in rank would officially vindicate them. No retroactive pay would be involved. The posthumous promotion of Admiral Kimmel and General Short will be a small step in restoring honor to these men. It is time for Congress and the administration to step forward and do the right thing. This year is the 59th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, providing an appropriate time to promote Admiral Kimmel and General Short. I urge adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last year, I introduced S. 763, a bill that would correct a long-standing injustice to the widows of our military retirees. Although my bill was accepted by the Senate as an amendment to the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill, it was dropped during the conference at the insistence of the House conferees. Today, I am again offering S. 763 as an amendment to the national Defense authorization bill. My amendment would immediately increase the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of the Survivor Benefit Plan for survivors over the age 62. The amendment would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of October 1, 2004. Mr. President, I am confident that each senator has received mail from military spouses expressing their dismay that they are not receiving the 55 percent of their husband's retirement pay as advertised in the Survivor Benefit Plan literature provided by the military. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced either by the account of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their spouses, as the constituent mail attests, believed their premium payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation in troubled spots throughout the world undergo when they learn of the annuity reduction. Mr. President, uniformed services retirees pay too much for the available SBP benefit both, compared to what is promised and what is offered to other federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the government would pay 40 percent of the cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long- term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with the federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal civilian retiree. Mr. President, the bill that we are currently considering contains several initiatives to restore to our military retirees benefits that they have earned, but which gradually were eroded over the past years. My amendment would add a small, but important, earned benefit for our military retirees, especially their survivors. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Lott, Cleland, Cochran, Landrieu, Snowe, McCain, Sessions, Inouye, and Dodd for joining me as cosponsors of this amendment and ask for its adoption. Amendment No. 3244 (Purpose: To eliminate an inequity in the applicability of early retirement eligibility requirements to military reserve technicians) On page 236, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon not to speak about the specifics of the National Defense Authorization Bill, but to speak to the importance of the Senate passing a defense authorization bill. I am very concerned that this bill will be so burdened with non-germane amendments that our House colleagues may challenge it on constitutional grounds--the so-called Blue Slip. If the Senate persists with these type of non-germane amendments there is the strong possibility that for the first time in my 41 years on the Armed Services Committee there will not be a National Defense Authorization Bill. Mr. President, if there is no authorization bill we will deny the following critical quality of life and readiness programs to our military personnel, both active and retired, and their families: No 3.7 percent pay raise; No Thrift Savings Plan; No concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and disability pay; No comprehensive lifetime health care benefits; and No military construction and family housing projects. Mr. President, it is ironic that two days ago, members were commemorating D-Day and the sacrifices of the thousands of men who charged across the beaches of Normandy. Now only two days later, the Senate is jeopardizing the bill that would ensure that a new generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have the same support as those heroes of World War II and the Korean War whose 50th anniversary we will be celebrating. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the impact of their votes on this strong bipartisan defense authorization bill. We must not jeopardize our 40 year record of providing for the men and women who proudly wear the uniforms of the Nation and make untold sacrifices on a daily basis to ensure the security of our great Nation. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3214

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, It is neither an understatement, nor a misstatement of fact, to say that the United States Senate is an impressive, awe inspiring, and unique institution for many different reasons. Certainly one of the biggest reasons that the Senate is such a special place is the talented, dedicated, and bright men and women who work in support of us and our duties. I rise to pay tribute to one of these individuals, Steve Benza, who is retiring today after thirty-two years of service as an employee of the United States Senate. Though he retains some of the mannerisms and accent that one would expect to find in someone who was born in the Bronx, New York City, Steve Benza is for all intents and purposes a native of the Senate. His family moved to the Washington area in 1958 and he began working in the Senate while a high school student, spending his summer breaks as a Page. Following graduation, Steve spent time working on the Grounds Crew and in the Senate Post Office before seizing the opportunity to work as a staff photographer, and his career was launched. As an aside, I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that Senate service is a family tradition with the Benzas, Steve's mother Christine Benza has served with the Architect of the Capitol for the past forty-years. Beginning his career as a ``shooter'', even before the contemporary Photographic Studio was established back in 1980, Steve Benza has become a familiar and well liked member of the Senate family. During his career here, Steve has met hundreds of Senators, taken probably millions of pictures, and has become an instantly recognizable institution with trademark mustache and trusted camera slung over his shoulder. In his almost thirty-years of working as an official photographer, Steve Benza has seen and chronicled everything from the mundane and routine to the unusual and historic. Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices, the Fiftieth Anniversary of the D-Day Invasion, the Inaugurations of four Presidents, dozens of State of the Union Addresses and Joint Sessions of Congress, and the Impeachment Trial of President Clinton are all among the events that have been covered by Steve Benza. In 1997, Steve was promoted from his position of supervisor of the Senate Photographers to Manager of the Senate Photo Studio where he has proven himself not only to be an able administrator, but someone of vision. Under his direction, the Senate Photographic Studio has invested in new equipment and technology, embracing the revolution in digital photography which has allowed for many innovations including quicker turn around time on orders, the creation of an image data base, and expanded services that ultimately benefit us and our constituents. Also under his direction, the Senate Photo Laboratory facilities were upgraded and training opportunities for staff were increased. All in all, the contributions and leadership of Steve Benza have turned the Photo Studio into a modern operation, equipped with the technology of the new century, and as a result, he has increased the efficiency of this vital Senate support service. He unquestionably leaves an impressive legacy of dedication to his job, and he has set an excellent example for others to emulate. It is hard to believe that after more than three-decades, Steve Benza has decided to retire. I know it is safe to say that he will missed by countless individuals including all one-hundred Senators, but I am certain that each of us will remember him. I had the pleasure of having Steve travel with me to the People's Republic of China when I led a delegation to that nation in 1997. Beyond putting together an impressive collection of images that chronicled our journey, Steve's relaxed disposition and ready sense of humor made what was a pleasurable journey all the more enjoyable. As many of us know, Steve Benza is a devoted family man. Though I understand that he has not made-up his mind as to what he will do in his retirement, I am certain that spending time with his wife Alma, and children George and Annie, will be a big part of his activities, as will pursuing his passions of fishing and golfing. Regardless of what Steve chooses to do in the future, I wish him many years of health, happiness, and success, and I want him to know that I am grateful and appreciative for his many years of loyal service to the United States Senate. It has been a pleasure to know him and I will certainly miss him.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of professional pleasure and personal pride that I rise today to honor an organization in which I am a life member and served as the 21st national president nearly 50 years ago. The organization of which I speak is our neighbor across First Street, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, though it is perhaps best known simply by its initials--ROA. The association was organized in 1922, at the instigation of General of the Armies John J. Pershing, who was then serving as the Army's Chief of Staff. Like many others who served in uniform in World War I, General Pershing was convinced that the war could have been significantly shortened or avoided altogether if an adequate pool of trained officers had existed at the time. Taking his sentiments to heart, 140 Reserve officers met at Washington's Willard Hotel and organized the Reserve Officers Association. It was largely through the dedicated efforts of this voluntary organization and its members that the United States established its Officer Reserve Corps, which was to supply the great majority of America's trained officers in the days leading up to World War II. It is appropriate for the Senate to note that these first ROA members were citizen-soldiers who clearly saw the approaching storm clouds. They pushed the nation toward an unprecedented level of pre-war preparedness that arguably saved lives and formed the very foundations of the great victories of democracy that were to follow. With the end of the war, the ROA resumed its normal operations, raising and maintaining the nation's awareness of the role and contributions of its military forces in the uneasy post-war world. It was in these tense days, in June 1950, that the Congress granted the ROA the formal charter that established the association's object and purpose. That formulation was clear and direct, unambiguous and unequivocal: ROA was ``to support a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate national security and to promote the development and execution thereof.'' For 50 years, the ROA has followed that guidance, and taken the lead in rigorously advocating a strong and viable national defense posture for our nation. The ROA has worked to support concepts that have strengthened our ability to preserve our freedom and to advance our national interests across the world. It worked to revitalize and fund the Selective Service System, support our Cold War allies, and focus the weight of public opinion in favor of our national commitment during the Gulf War and expanding NATO. It has played a major role in persuading the Congress to provide more than $15 billion in critically needed equipment for our nation's Reserve components. In addition, the ROA has also clearly understood that not all ideas are good ideas. It successfully opposed efforts to combine the Army Reserve and National Guard, and to disestablish the Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserves, as well as the Selective Service System and the commissioned officer corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, the ROA has, for the past 78 years, proven itself to be a strong and articulate voice in the halls of Congress and the corridors of government for all our service members. It has lived up to its charter and supported the cause of national defense in seasons when it has not been popular to do so. It has established an enviable reputation for nonpartisan expertise and even-handed advocacy, a reputation that has grown and flourished as defense issues have become ever more complex in these days of the Total Force Policy. The ROA enjoys the confidence of the Congress and of the Department of Defense. Its successful legislative efforts have made it a valued partner in the formulation and development of the annual defense bills and in building broad, bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform. Over the years I have learned that serious debate on any issue dealing with our Reserve forces is not complete until we have heard from the ROA. As the number of members of Congress with personal military experience has declined, the importance of ROA's contribution to developing our military policy has increased exponentially. The ROA has played and will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the debate over the appropriate roles and missions of our Armed Forces. The nation is most fortunate to have such an asset to call upon. We should all be grateful. Mr. President, I urge all Senators to join me in congratulating the Reserve Officers Association of the United States on the fiftieth anniversary of the granting of its congressional charter.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate begins consideration of the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001, I join my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in congratulating Chairman Warner and the ranking member, Senator Levin, on their leadership in preparing a strong bipartisan defense bill, which passed the Committee by an overwhelming 19-1 vote. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001 ensures that our Armed Forces can continue to carry out their global responsibilities by focusing on readiness, future national security threats, and quality of life. I am especially pleased with the focus on the quality of life issues. Our military personnel and their families are expected to make great sacrifices and they deserve adequate compensation. Therefore, I strongly support the 3.7 percent pay raise, the significant improvements in military health care, especially those impacting our military retirees and their families. These are critical provisions, which when coupled with the additional family housing and barracks construction, will result in a well-earned improvement in the standard of living for all our military personnel. The defense bill before us continues the improvements in the readiness issues identified by our Service Chiefs. The committee added over $700 million for programs identified as shortfalls during the Kosovo conflict. It increased key readiness programs such as ammunition, spare parts, base operations and training by more than $1.5 billion. Although these are significant improvements, we cannot be satisfied with these increases and must ensure continued robust funding increases for these programs in future bills. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall our Nation has faced ever changing threats. Among these are the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and the ever increasing sophistication of weapons in the hands of countries throughout the world. To counter these threats the committee added $78.8 million in the Emerging Threats Subcommittee accounts. These resources will fund critical research into new technology, while at the same time provide for the reduction and security of the nuclear and chemical arsenals of the former Soviet Union. It is money wisely spent and deserves our full support. I have previously congratulated the chairman and ranking member for their work on this bill. Before closing, I want to congratulate each of the subcommittee chairmen--Senator Inhofe, Senator Snowe, Senator Santorum, Senator Roberts, Senator Allard and Senator Hutchinson--and their ranking members for their contribution to this bill. Their leadership and work provided the foundation for this legislation. Finally, I believe it is important that we recognize Les Brownlee and David Lyles for their leadership of a very professional and bipartisan staff. This national defense authorization bill is a strong and sound bill. I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to join me in showing our strong support for the bill and our men and women in uniform.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today on the anniversary of D-Day, June 6th, 1944, I have the great privilege to introduce a joint resolution honoring the United States Army on its 225th birthday. Before there was a United States of America, there was an American Army, born on June 14th, 1775. On the town square of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a small group of American colonists came together to form an army, under the authority of the Continental Congress. This June 14th, we will look back over those 225 years and see clearly that the forming of the colonial Army was the prelude to the birth of our nation. As the Army's slogan for this commemoration says, it was the ``Birth of an army and the birth of freedom.'' Like Members of this body, to be a soldier is to believe in something other than what we can achieve for ourselves as individuals. I am proud to help celebrate the Army birthday, marking more than two centuries of selfless service to the United States of America. More than 42 million Americans have raised their right hands to take an oath, both in times of crisis and in times of peace. As I introduce this resolution, I ask that each of you please join me next month to extend the heartfelt thanks of this Congress to each and every soldier for their outstanding service to our nation! Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I would do it again, if necessary.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today on the anniversary of D-Day, June 6th, 1944, I have the great privilege to introduce a joint resolution honoring the United States Army on its 225th birthday. Before there was a United States of America, there was an American Army, born on June 14th, 1775. On the town square of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a small group of American colonists came together to form an army, under the authority of the Continental Congress. This June 14th, we will look back over those 225 years and see clearly that the forming of the colonial Army was the prelude to the birth of our nation. As the Army's slogan for this commemoration says, it was the ``Birth of an army and the birth of freedom.'' Like Members of this body, to be a soldier is to believe in something other than what we can achieve for ourselves as individuals. I am proud to help celebrate the Army birthday, marking more than two centuries of selfless service to the United States of America. More than 42 million Americans have raised their right hands to take an oath, both in times of crisis and in times of peace. As I introduce this resolution, I ask that each of you please join me next month to extend the heartfelt thanks of this Congress to each and every soldier for their outstanding service to our nation! Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I would do it again, if necessary.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will suspend the duties imposed on certain manufacturing equipment that is necessary for tire production. Currently, this equipment is imported for use in the United States because there are no known American producers. Therefore, suspending the duties on this equipment would not adversely affect domestic industries. This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on tire manufacturing equipment required to make certain large off-road tires that fall between the sizes currently fabricated in the United States. These tires would be used primarily in agriculture. Mr. President, suspending the duty on this manufacturing equipment will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing these products. In addition to permitting new production in this country, these duty suspensions will allow U.S. manufacturers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will suspend the duties imposed on certain manufacturing equipment that is necessary for tire production. Currently, this equipment is imported for use in the United States because there are no known American producers. Therefore, suspending the duties on this equipment would not adversely affect domestic industries. This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on tire manufacturing equipment required to make certain large off-road tires that fall between the sizes currently fabricated in the United States. These tires would be used primarily in agriculture. Mr. President, suspending the duty on this manufacturing equipment will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing these products. In addition to permitting new production in this country, these duty suspensions will allow U.S. manufacturers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an old friend and one of South Carolina's most public minded citizens, Clarence Holland ``Icky'' Albright, who recently passed away at the age of 93. To those who knew him, Icky Albright was synonymous with the town of Rock Hill, a small and charming city in the Olde English District of South Carolina. Though a native of Laurens, Icky Albright moved to Rock Hill in 1929, shortly after graduating from Clemson Agricultural College, and became Rock Hill's leading citizen and cheerleader. He essentially spent his entire adult life working tirelessly, as both a private citizen and a public official, to promote what is a quintessential southern and American town. Icky Albright was fiercely proud of his adopted hometown and set his roots deep there, starting with his 1934 marriage to Rock Hill native, the former Sophie Marshall. Mr. Albright was one of the Rock Hill business community's leading citizens, for years, he was part owner of a hardware store established by his father-in-law and he later started his own business, ``Albright Reality Incorporated''. Furthermore, he was active in any number of civic and service organizations. His passion for making Rock Hill the best place possible to live prompted him to get involved in public service, running for and serving on the City Council from 1940-1944, as Mayor from 1948-1954, and as South Carolina State Senator from 1966-1968. Beyond the many votes he cast as a public servant, the funds he raised for charity, or enthusiastically promoting commerce, Icky Albright's most enduring legacy was the creation of the ``Come-See-Me Festival'' held every April and timed to coincide with the blooming of the azaleas in the city's Glencairn Garden. A modest man, Icky Albright protested that this successful festival was the idea of many, though everyone knew that he was the one who was truly responsible for this popular event that draws more than 100,000 people each year. Though it sounds a tad cliche, it is true to say that Icky Albright lived a long, full, and rewarding life, and that through his efforts he touched the lives of many and made a significant difference in his community and our state. All that knew him mourn his passing and our condolences go out to his widow, their two sons ``Bud'' and Ned, three grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.s

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize the service of Brigadier General Mitchell M. Zais, who has dedicated the past three-decades to protecting the security and people of our nation as a soldier and officer in the United States Army. General Zais began his career when he graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1969 and accepted a commission in the Infantry. It was at this point in time that the American involvement in Vietnam was at its apex, and the newly minted officer quickly had the opportunity to put to the test the martial skills he had learned at West Point and Fort Benning. Heading to Southeast Asia, then Second Lieutenant Zais assumed command of an infantry platoon in the 101st Airborne Division and began what has been a long and distinguished career. After emerging from the jungles of Vietnam, this officer held a variety of positions which were progressively more responsible and moved him up the Army's hierarchy. He has served in Asia, Europe, Central America, and the United States, has held command at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade levels, and has held vital staff assignments including on the Joint Staff. General Zais is currently serving as Chief of Staff, United States Army Reserve Command, but this will be his last assignment as he is due to retire from the military shortly, ending what has been an impressive career. Commendably, General Zais has decided to seek a second career which will allow him to continue to make a difference, that of an educator. I am pleased to report that this man will assume the duties of President of Newberry College in Newberry, South Carolina. I am confident that the General will enjoy his new hometown and his new job. As a former educator, I can assure him that there are few things more rewarding than working with young people. I commend General Mitchell Zais on his many years of dedicated and selfless service to the nation and the Army, I welcome him to South Carolina, and I wish him the best of health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce four bills which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are important components in a wide array of applications. Currently, these chemicals are imported for use in the United States because there are no known American producers or readily available substitutes. Therefore, suspending the duties on these chemicals would not adversely affect domestic industries. These bills would temporarily suspend the duty on the following: Mesamoll (alkyl sulfonic acid ester of phenol); Vulkalent E/C (N-phenyl-N-((trichloromethyl)thio)-benzenesulfonamide with calcium carbonate and mineral oil); Baytron M (3,4 ethylenedioxythiophene); and Baytron C-R (iron(III) toluenesulfonate). These chemicals are used in the manufacturing of a number of products including, but not limited to, solvents, PVC coated fabric, medical apparatus, rubber products for automobile hoses, circuit boards, and other electronic goods. Mr. President, suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, these duty suspensions will allow U.S. manufacturers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 434, the Trade and Development Act of 2000. I oppose this bill because, as a result of this legislation, many Americans will lose their jobs, a significant number of whom will be South Carolinians. Our domestic textile industry will be particularly damaged. I remind my colleagues that in the past five years over 454,000 American textile industry workers already have lost their jobs. At best, this bill further erodes the system of protective quotas that the Administration promised the U.S. textile industry as a condition of U.S. entry into the World Trade Organization. This quota system was to remain in effect for ten years from 1995 until 2005, to provide the U.S. textile industry with time to adjust to competition from foreign government-subsidized and sweat-shop made textile imports. The textile industry has been strong in the United States because it encompasses fiber, fabric, and apparel production. The textile industry, in the aggregate, forms the second largest industrial sector of the U.S. economy. Certain segments of the industry, such as yarn and fabric production, have benefitted from technology and increased capital investment while apparel production has tended to opt for cheaper labor rather than invest in modern production facilities. I fear this bill will further encourage U.S. textile firms to move their production off-shore. It signals capital markets that the U.S. textile industry is at risk, thus reducing its ability to borrow the capital to make those improvements necessary for domestic production. With the denial of capital to automate and modernize, the rush toward cheaper and cheaper labor will lead to a continuing exodus of U.S.- based manufacturing. This will result in a further loss of employment in the domestic textile industry and its supporting industries. A decline in the domestic textile industry will also impact American farmers. Cotton producers in the United States have profited from a strong and vibrant domestic textile industry. However, as the textile industry becomes locked in a downward spiral of chasing ever lower costs, it will look for other ways to reduce expenditures. A likely result will be to encourage cotton production closer to its foreign manufacturing facilities. While U.S. cotton exports may initially increase under this legislation, the long-term impact will not be so favorable to domestic cotton producers. The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean do need to develop economically. There can be no doubt that these countries require help. However, providing assistance by decimating the U.S. textile industry is not the answer. Furthermore, there is no assurance that this bill will improve the textile industry of these Nations or provide jobs to their citizens. It is clear that government- subsidized Asian textile interests are positioning themselves to dominate the world textile trade. One only has to look at the situation in the Northern Mariana Islands to see the model for the future. Moreover, transshipment to evade the quota arrangements of this bill and other existing quotas will likely continue until the quotas finally end in 2005. Mr. President, H.R. 434 is a bad bill that critically injures the U.S. textile industry, puts Americans out of work, and, in the end, benefits only Asian textile interests. Therefore, I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Biden that will help address the growing problem of fugitives by giving the U.S. Marshals Service tools they need to apprehend fugitives from justice. Senator Biden and I have worked together many times over the years in support of Federal law enforcement. Fugitives are those who the courts have found warrant prosecution or have already been found guilty, but are attempting to beat the system. These are individuals who, by their conduct, have indicated a complete lack of respect for our Nation's criminal justice system. This situation represents not only an outrage to the rule of law but also a threat to the safety and security of Americans. Fugitives from justice often continue to commit additional crimes while running free on the streets. According to some estimates, there are approximately 45,000 fugitives from justice in Federal felony cases. The number of serious Federal offense warrants received by the U.S. Marshals Service has increased each year for the past 4 years. Also, over one-half million fugitives in State and local felony cases have been entered into the database of the National Crime Information Center or NCIC. This number is up from 340,000 reported in 1990. Also, the NCIC receives only about 20 percent of all outstanding State and local felony warrants in the country. If the NCIC estimates are correct, then there could be over 2.5 million State local fugitive warrants in felony cases alone. This does not even include misdemeanor warrants. Mr. President, this is a serious problem. We must do more to address the growing threat of fugitives on the State and Federal level. It is critical to our fight against crime. Task forces have been shown to be successful in tracking fugitives. This legislation would create more multi-agency task forces around the country to locate and apprehend the enormous number of fugitives nationwide. The marshals involved would be directed by headquarters, so they would not be diverted to tasks such as courtroom security. Also, the task forces would be a joint effort, staffed by U.S. Marshals and State and local law enforcement authorities. These task forces would share case workload and intelligence to locate and apprehend fugitives wanted in their jurisdictions. Fugitives are the one investigative priority of the U.S. Marshals Service. Because of this expertise, the marshals have been able to specialize their personnel and investigative techniques to deal with this one critical mission. Conducting an investigation to make a criminal case against someone is nothing like trying to find a person who does not want to be found. The same techniques used to conduct criminal investigations cannot be used successfully in fugitive investigations. This puts the majority of law enforcement agencies at a disadvantage, especially State and local law enforcement, who are forced to put their resources into a wide variety of normal police duties. These task forces can help State and local law enforcement develop greater expertise in this area so they can be more efficient and successful in tracking fugitives. Fugitive investigations are very fluid and time sensitive. The difference between locating and apprehending a fugitive or missing the individual can be merely a matter of minutes. The time-sensitive nature of these investigations often creates problems under current Federal law. As a general matter, if there is no intent to indict the fugitive for escape, which is true in most fugitive cases, investigators may not use a grand jury subpoena to obtain information on the fugitive. Although investigators can get information through application to the court, the time necessary in seeking Federal court orders can make the difference between apprehension and further flight of the fugitive. This bill would remedy this deficiency in the law by providing the U.S. Marshals Service administrative subpoena authority in fugitive investigations. This subpoena authority is based on the same authority current law already provides to the Drug Enforcement Administration in drug investigations. In summary, this bill would help bring to justice dangerous fugitives that are roaming the streets of America. I hope my colleagues will support this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent to print into the Record a copy of the bill and a section-by-section explanation of its provisions.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Biden that will help address the growing problem of fugitives by giving the U.S. Marshals Service tools they need to apprehend fugitives from justice. Senator Biden and I have worked together many times over the years in support of Federal law enforcement. Fugitives are those who the courts have found warrant prosecution or have already been found guilty, but are attempting to beat the system. These are individuals who, by their conduct, have indicated a complete lack of respect for our Nation's criminal justice system. This situation represents not only an outrage to the rule of law but also a threat to the safety and security of Americans. Fugitives from justice often continue to commit additional crimes while running free on the streets. According to some estimates, there are approximately 45,000 fugitives from justice in Federal felony cases. The number of serious Federal offense warrants received by the U.S. Marshals Service has increased each year for the past 4 years. Also, over one-half million fugitives in State and local felony cases have been entered into the database of the National Crime Information Center or NCIC. This number is up from 340,000 reported in 1990. Also, the NCIC receives only about 20 percent of all outstanding State and local felony warrants in the country. If the NCIC estimates are correct, then there could be over 2.5 million State local fugitive warrants in felony cases alone. This does not even include misdemeanor warrants. Mr. President, this is a serious problem. We must do more to address the growing threat of fugitives on the State and Federal level. It is critical to our fight against crime. Task forces have been shown to be successful in tracking fugitives. This legislation would create more multi-agency task forces around the country to locate and apprehend the enormous number of fugitives nationwide. The marshals involved would be directed by headquarters, so they would not be diverted to tasks such as courtroom security. Also, the task forces would be a joint effort, staffed by U.S. Marshals and State and local law enforcement authorities. These task forces would share case workload and intelligence to locate and apprehend fugitives wanted in their jurisdictions. Fugitives are the one investigative priority of the U.S. Marshals Service. Because of this expertise, the marshals have been able to specialize their personnel and investigative techniques to deal with this one critical mission. Conducting an investigation to make a criminal case against someone is nothing like trying to find a person who does not want to be found. The same techniques used to conduct criminal investigations cannot be used successfully in fugitive investigations. This puts the majority of law enforcement agencies at a disadvantage, especially State and local law enforcement, who are forced to put their resources into a wide variety of normal police duties. These task forces can help State and local law enforcement develop greater expertise in this area so they can be more efficient and successful in tracking fugitives. Fugitive investigations are very fluid and time sensitive. The difference between locating and apprehending a fugitive or missing the individual can be merely a matter of minutes. The time-sensitive nature of these investigations often creates problems under current Federal law. As a general matter, if there is no intent to indict the fugitive for escape, which is true in most fugitive cases, investigators may not use a grand jury subpoena to obtain information on the fugitive. Although investigators can get information through application to the court, the time necessary in seeking Federal court orders can make the difference between apprehension and further flight of the fugitive. This bill would remedy this deficiency in the law by providing the U.S. Marshals Service administrative subpoena authority in fugitive investigations. This subpoena authority is based on the same authority current law already provides to the Drug Enforcement Administration in drug investigations. In summary, this bill would help bring to justice dangerous fugitives that are roaming the streets of America. I hope my colleagues will support this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent to print into the Record a copy of the bill and a section-by-section explanation of its provisions.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to submit a Senate resolution which designates August 16, 2000 as ``National Airborne Day.'' On June 25, 1940, the War Department authorized the Parachute Test Platoon to experiment with the potential use of airborne troops. The Parachute Test Platoon, which was composed of 48 volunteers, performed the first official army parachute jump on August 16, 1940. The success of the Platoon led to the formation of a large and successful airborne contingent that has served from World War Two until the present. I was privileged to serve with the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the first airborne divisions to be organized. In a two-year period during World War Two, the regiments of the 82nd served in Italy at Anzio, in France at Normandy (where I landed with them), and at the Battle of the Bulge. The 11th, 13th, 17th, and 101st Airborne Divisions and numerous other regimental and battalion size airborne units were also organized following the success of the Parachute Test Platoon. In the last sixty years, these airborne forces have performed in important military and peace-keeping operations all over the world, and it is only fitting that we honor them. Mr. President, through passage of ``National Airborne Day,'' the Senate will reaffirm our support for the members of the airborne community and also show our gratitude for their tireless commitment to our Nation's defense and ideals.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the vital work performed by a group of tireless and dedicated professionals: The members of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). I congratulate the Society for its outstanding achievements, and note this year they celebrated their 20th annual meeting. It is often said that the United States is home to the finest pool of health care professionals in the world. I could not agree more. Each and every day, these professionals provide cutting edge care for millions across the country. Treatments that did not exist just ten years ago are now saving lives on a routine basis. I am hopeful that we never take this high level of care for granted. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine is one group that demonstrates the tremendous talent we have in our country. For many of us, ``maternal-fetal medicine'' may not be an everyday term. However, we all acknowledge that mothers experiencing complicated pregnancies require and deserve the best care possible. Maternal-fetal specialists provide care or consultation during complicated pregnancies. In addition, they provide education and research concerning the most recent approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of obstetrical problems. As a result, these specialists promote awareness of the diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for optimal management of these complicated pregnancies. In addition, it should be noted that maternal- fetal medicine specialists are complementary to obstetricians in providing consultations, co-management or direct care before and during pregnancy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine for their outstanding work. I also want to acknowledge the fine work of Dr. Peter Van Dorsten, President of the SMFM, who resides in my home state of South Carolina. There is no doubt that Americans across the country join me in thanking these unique individuals.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution, I want to again bring to the attention of my colleagues the testimony by General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29, 1998. ``It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets the U.S. military apart from all potential adversaries. These talented people are the ones who won the Cold War and ensured our victory in Operation Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals make it possible for the United States to accomplish the many missions we are called on to perform around the world every single day.'' It has been glaringly evident to me, and I suspect to some of my colleagues, that there has been little or no mention of national security issues during this debate on the budget resolution. Maybe it is because defense does not rank very high in the polls which reflect the concerns of the American people. Or maybe it is because everyone assumes that the defense budget is adequate and there is no reason to debate it. I am here today, along with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and members of the Armed Services Committee, to tell you that the level of defense spending proposed by the President and this budget resolution is inadequate. To highlight the problem let me point out that despite the two percent increase in the President's budget over fiscal year 2000 and another $500 million increase in the budget resolution, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have identified a requirement for an additional $15 billion to meet shortfalls in readiness and modernization for fiscal year 2001. Mr. President, we have the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, however, all their professionalism is for naught if they do not have the equipment, weapons and supplies to carry out their mission. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm, which reflected both the professionalism and material quality of our Armed Forces, the defense budget has declined by $80 billion. Yet the pace of the military operations has not declined, in fact the pace of operations exceeds that of the Cold War era. Not only are the men and women of our military stretched to the limits, but also their equipment. The $4 billion increase in the Defense Budget proposed by Chairman Warner's amendment will not resolve the shortfall identified by the Nation's most senior military commanders, it will however provide the necessary funding to improve recruiting, retention, health care, and most important readiness. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of Senator Warner's amendment to ensure we meet the Nation's security needs. We must not leave the false impression that the increase in the President's budget and the additional funding proposed in the budget resolution will result in increased security for our Nation.