J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nunn amendment to the Dole-Lieberman substitute to S. 21. The Nunn amendment recognizes that it is the Bosnian Serbs who have rejected the agreement reached by the contact group. The amendment also places the responsibility of seeking a multilateral lift of the arms embargo on the administration. Failing an agreement of the U.N. Security Council to multilaterally lift the arms embargo, the United States has no alternative but to unilaterally lift the arms embargo, pending a withdrawal of UNPROFOR.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to amend the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court decision in United States versus Enmons, and to address a serious, long term, festering problem under our Nation's labor laws. The United States regulates labor relations on a national basis and our labor- management policies are national policies. These policies and regulations are enforced by laws such as the National Labor Relations Act that Congress designed to preempt comparable State laws. Although labor violence is a widespread problem in labor management relations today, the Federal Government has not moved in a meaningful way to address this issue. I believe it is time for the Government to act and respond to what the Supreme Court did when it rendered its decision in the case of United States versus Enmons in 1973. It is this decision's unfortunate result which this bill is intended to rectify. The Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act which is intended to prohibit extortion by labor unions. It provides that: ``Whoever in any way * * * obstructs, delays, or affects commerce in the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property * * *'' commits a criminal act. This language is very clear. It outlaws extortion by labor unions. It outlaws violence by labor unions. Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate collective bargaining objectives, no violation of the Act will be found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are correct, the means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not result in a violation of the Act. The Enmons decision is wrong. This bill will make it clear that the Hobbs Act is intended to punish the actual or threatened use of force or violence to obtain property irrespective of the legitimacy of the extortionist's claim to such property and irrespective of the existence of a labor-management dispute. Let me discuss the Enmons case. In that case, the defendants were indicted for firing high-powered rifles at property, causing extensive damage to the property, owned by a utility company--all done in an effort to obtain higher wages and other benefits from the company for striking employees. The indictment was, however, dismissed by the district court on the theory that the Hobbs Act did not prohibit the use of violence in obtaining ``legitimate'' union objectives. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving legitimate collective bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant, who uses violence or force to achieve his goals, the Enmons decision has had several unfortunate results. It has deprived the Federal Government of the ability to punish significant acts of extortionate violence when they occur in a labor-management context. Although other Federal statutes prohibit the use of specific devices or the use of channels of commerce in accomplishing the underlying act of extortionate violence, only the Hobbs Act proscribes a localized act of extortionate violence whose economic effect is to disrupt the channels of commerce. Other Federal statutes are not adequate to address the full effect of the Enmons decision. The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and without regard to his status as a labor representative, businessman, or private citizen. Mr. President, attempts to rectify the injustice of the Enmons decision have been before the Senate on several occasions. Shortly after the decision was handed down, a bill was introduced which was intended to repudiate the decision. Over the next several years, attempts were made to come up with language which was acceptable to organized labor and at the same time restored the original intent of the Hobbs Act. In 1978, S. 1437, a bill which was substantially the same as the bill I am introducing today, passed the Senate; however, the bill died in the House. In the 100th Congress, I introduced S. 2036, a bill which is identical to this legislation, yet no substantial action was taken on the bill. It is time for the Senate to re-examine this issue and to restate its opposition to violence in labor disputes. Encouraged by their special exemption from prosecution for acts of violence committed in pursuit of ``legitimate'' union objectives, union officials who are corrupt routinely use terror tactics to achieve their goals. From January 1975 to December 1993, the National Right to Work Committee has documented more than 7,800 reported cases of union violence. This chilling statistic gives clear testimony to the existence of a pervasive national problem. Mr. President, violence has no place in our society, regardless of the setting. Our national labor policy has always been directed toward the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. It is ironic that the Hobbs Act, which was enacted in large part to accomplish this worthy goal, has been virtually emasculated. The time has come to change that. I think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share a common concern that violence in labor disputes, whatever the source, should be eliminated. Government has been unwilling to deal with this program for too long. It is time for this Congress to act. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great national concern--this country's nuclear waste policy. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which directed the Department of Energy to develop a permanent repository for highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and defense facilities. Congress passed amendments to that act in 1987, which limited DOE's repository development activities to a single site at Yucca Mountain, NV. Since 1983, electric consumers have contributed $11 billion to finance the development of a permanent storage site. Despite DOE's obligation to take title to spent nuclear fuel in 1998, a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept this waste until the year 2010, at the earliest. Mr. President, the House of Representatives recently passed the energy and water development appropriations bill for 1996. This bill recommends that $425 million be made available for DOE's spent fuel disposal program, $200 million below the level needed to continue developing a permanent site. Furthermore, the committee report to this bill directs DOE to ``concentrate available resources on the development and implementation of a national interim storage program,'' and to ``downgrade, suspend or terminate its activities at Yucca Mountain.'' Mr. President, I am greatly concerned by the action of the House. We have already spent 12 years and $4.2 billion to find a permanent repository site and conduct development activities at Yucca Mountain. No other viable site for permanent storage has been considered since 1987. If we terminate or suspend activities at Yucca Mountain now, we will be wasting the time and money invested since 1982 toward finding a suitable location. As I have already stated, the electric consumers of this Nation have contributed $11 billion, and we are still behind schedule. How can we, in good conscience, discontinue our efforts at Yucca Mountain when so much time and money has been invested there. To do so would eradicate the progress we have made and abolish any hope of developing a permanent site in the near future. It is our obligation to the American people to develop a permanent repository as quickly as possible and, therefore, we must persist with the efforts at Yucca Mountain. It is our only alternative. Mr. President, I realize that continuing development of the permanent site at Yucca Mountain will not completely solve the spent fuel problem. In 1998, 23 nuclear reactors will run out of space to store spent fuel. At that time, storage will become DOE's responsibility. Therefore, we need to designate an interim storage site to use until the permanent facility at Yucca Mountain is available. The most logical location for an interim site is Yucca Mountain. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is a delicate undertaking, so it is sensible to locate an interim facility as near to the permanent facility as is possible. Likewise, the proximity of an interim site to the permanent site would save money on transportation costs between the two sites. Comprehensive legislation has been introduced in both the Senate and House that offers a solution to the spent fuel problem, including the construction of an interim facility at Yucca Mountain. Building a central interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain by 1998 and continuing to develop a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010 is our most reasonable course of action. Too much time and money has been invested to change directions now. As my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee consider funding for the project at Yucca Mountain, I urge them to remember the commitment we have made to the citizens of this Nation. Any efforts to abandon this program will deprive this country of a long-term solution to our nuclear waste storage dilemma.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Burns and Senator Reid for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. They have done a good job. In large part this military construction appropriations bill mirrors the construction priorities and criteria for projects established by the Armed Services Committee. I am particularly pleased by the emphasis placed on projects that will enhance the quality of life of the men and women in our military and on projects which will enhance the readiness of our Armed Forces. The bill also fully funds the base closure account request and provides the necessary funds to support environmental compliance projects. Both are areas which have historically been used as sources of funds for other projects. Mr. President, I believe this is a sound bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Because I believe this is a good bill, I oppose the Bingaman-McCain amendment. There should no longer be any doubt that the administration's proposed defense budget is underfunded. Although Secretary Perry increased funding for quality of life construction projects over the next 6 years by $2.7 billion, there are very serious shortfalls in the Department's military construction programs. Let me identify just a few of the most startling: According to the Congressional Research Service the current backlog of deferred maintenance and repair for family housing alone totals over $2 billion; Air Force Housing units do not measure up to contemporary standards; 75 percent of the Army's family housing does not adequately meet Department of Defense Standards; 80 to 85 percent of the Army barracks do not meet current Department of Defense Standards; the Navy's current funding requirement for revitalization of family housing is $1.7 billion; and, at current funding levels it would take over 40 years to eliminate the space and revitalization backlog for Navy and Marine Corps housing. Mr. President, in addition to these startling figures, there are requirements for new mission facilities that are not being addressed in the administration's budget request. There are both active and reserve units which have been assigned new missions or new equipment but have not been provided the facilities to accomplish their new missions or support that equipment. This military construction appropriations bill provides for some of those shortfalls. Because there are always allegations that some of the projects in the bill may be wasteful, I had my staff review each project. They reported that to the best of their knowledge each project that is in this bill but not in the Armed Service Committee's bill meets the same rigorous criteria that Senator McCain and Senator Glenn, the chairman and ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, impose on projects included in the Armed Services Committee's bill. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may not appreciate the additional funding and construction projects included in this bill. However, I am confident that the men and women of our armed services and their families who will benefit from these projects will be most appreciative. I ask my colleagues to support the bill and vote against the Bingaman-McCain amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, each day, members of this body rise to pay tribute to men and women who have had an impact on our Nation in one manner or another. On any given day the Record will contain passages praising elected officials, captains of industry, and others who have accumulated a list of accomplishments that are usually nothing less than impressive and oftentimes enviable. Today, I want to recognize a woman who does not possess such a vita, but is nevertheless worthy of recognition, the late Mrs. Dollye Hanna, who recently passed away at the age of 98. Though Mrs. Hanna, or ``Momma Doll'' as she was affectionately known by her family and friends, was not involved in either public service or the private sector, she did dedicate her life to the noblest endeavor there is, her family. In her almost century on this earth, she was a loving wife, mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and great-great grandmother. She set an example for kindness and caring, and as the matriarch of the family, she left her strong mark and influence on four generations of Hannas. During a service held in her memory last month, Mrs. Hanna was remembered as a woman who was: a lady; a mother; a friend; someone who spanned time; and as a child of The Father. I cannot think of a more flattering or appropriate manner in which to remember this special woman who devoted herself to caring for her husband, children, and extended family. She is someone who will certainly be missed by all those who knew her, and my sympathies go out to all those who knew and cared for this remarkable lady, especially her grandchildren: E.G. Meybohm; Robert L. Meybohm; Dollye W. Ward; Mildred W. Ghetti; and Hanna W. Fowler.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last week the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, a so-called U.N. protected area, fell to Bosnian Serbs. In scenes reminiscent of the genocide of World War II, Serb troops rounded up Bosnian Moslems and forcibly expelled thousands of women, children, and the elderly from their homes. Military-age men were held captive, and there are reports that some have been murdered. Rapes and other atrocities are reported as well. This week Zepa, another U.N. protected area in eastern Bosnia, is about to fall to the Serbs. The U.N. protected area of Gorazde is under attack. Serbs inside the U.N. exclusion zone around Sarajevo are shelling the city and killing innocent civilians in that U.N. protected area. In the northeast, the U.N. safe haven of Bihac remains cut off and threatened. Throughout Bosnia today, we see the triumph of Serbian aggression, aided and abetted by confusion and inaction on the part of the United Nations and the Western democracies. Mr. President, what is the response of the Western democracies to the atrocities and brutal aggression of the Serbs? The response is another U.N. Security Council resolution, calling on the Secretary General to restore the safe haven of Srebrenica. In Bosnia, the United Nations spokesmen issue more empty threats, hollow denunciations, and vain demands. It would be better to say nothing at all than to engage in such futile bluster, which only invites the contempt of the world. One definition of stupidity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. This certainly characterizes the policy of the administration and our Western allies. Its failure is apparent for anyone to see, [[Page S 10178]] and yet we persist in following the same discredited course. UNPROFOR has been emasculated and cannot protect its own forces, much less the U.N. protected areas, which are becoming traps for desperate Bosnians who relied upon U.N. promises. Humanitarian aid is being blocked. It is clear that the Bosnian Serbs are in control of the situation, and the United Nations is allowed to carry out its mission only when the Bosnian Serbs allow it. In short, UNPROFOR cannot carry out the U.N. Security Council mandates that justify its presence. Despite good intentions and valiant efforts, UNPROFOR has failed-- failed on its own terms. Now humiliation and disgrace are compounding the failure. What does it take, Mr. President? When will the U.N., the United States, and our allies accept the reality that the Bosnian crisis has deteriorated beyond our ability to salvage it? Britain, France, and Holland have pinned their hopes on the new rapid reaction force. They are sending in 12,000 more troops to support UNPROFOR. Out of solidarity with our allies, the United States is providing sealift, airlift, and military equipment. But in my view, the rapid reaction force is not going to prevent the situation from deteriorating further, or stop the Serbs from overrunning of the safe havens. The rapid reaction force has been rendered ineffective before it ever got off the ground. As long as it remains under U.N. operational control it will not be rapid, nor reactive, nor even a force. I do not understand why the administration persists in supporting the status quo no matter how discredited the current policy becomes. Administration officials have testified numerous times that the United States does not have sufficient national interests at stake in Bosnia to justify sending American ground troops and becoming a combatant in the conflict. I agree completely, and so do the American people. Administration officials have also testified that the best way to serve the national interests of the United States is to keep UNPROFOR in Bosnia so that it can work to limit the suffering of the innocent, and to keep the conflict from spreading while the contact group seeks a diplomatic solution. I wholeheartedly support the goals of relieving the suffering and containing the conflict. What I can no longer support is the proposition that the status quo, which relies upon an ineffectual U.N. peacekeeping mission and more diplomatic efforts, is the best way to achieve these goals. I am forced to ask: How many more diplomatic discussions have to take place? Intense diplomacy has been going on for years without any resolution. The Administration appears to believe that the responsibility for any resulting disaster will fall on the United States if UNPROFOR withdraws. I do not agree. The world community placed the fate of Bosnia in the hands of the United Nations, but the United Nations has been unable to keep a nonexistent peace. That is no more the fault of the United States than of any other U.N. member. In any case, the world cannot be blamed for trying a collective approach. But there is plenty of blame to go around if the United States and our allies persist in following a course that has clearly failed. Increasing the number of U.N. peacekeepers or keeping UNPROFOR in Bosnia will only prolong the agony, complicate matters further, and block the possibility of other solutions. Mr. President, the situation in Bosnia is terribly complex, and there are no easy answers. Any course of action has potential pitfalls. But there is also a penalty for doing nothing, or for remaining mired in the status quo. In my view, the administration has failed to properly evaluate the damage to U.S. leadership and credibility, and to the Western alliance, from supporting the status quo. The credibility of NATO as well as of the United Nations have been severely undermined. It is a serious mistake to continue subordinating NATO to the United Nations out of a misguided desire to restore the United Nations lost credibility. The longer the present situation continues, the greater the damage to the health and solidarity of the Western alliance. We cannot afford to let NATO to become a casualty of the Bosnian tragedy. The fall of Srebrenica and the imminent fall of Zepa make it quite clear--UNPROFOR has become impotent and must withdraw. There is no excuse for leaving U.N. troops in such a dangerous and untenable position any longer. There is no excuse for continuing to incur the huge expense of the failed U.N. mission. We can no longer tolerate a policy based on denial and avoidance of reality. I believe it is past time for the Congress to focus its attention on getting the U.N. out of Bosnia. If the administration is reluctant to support a U.N. withdrawal because it fears a negative political reaction, then now is the time for Congress to show leadership, and to make it clear that the United States will assist in extricating our allies from the Bosnian quagmire. But we must work together--the executive branch and Congress--and reach a consensus as soon as possible. Further delays in getting ready to execute the NATO withdrawal plan will push the plan's execution into the winter months, making it far more difficult and dangerous for United States and NATO troops to carry out. Mr. President, Congress needs to send a clear signal now to the President that we will support the participation of U.S. troops in a U.N. withdrawal operation. Of course, as the President has agreed, it must be totally under NATO command. Once our troops are committed, there can no longer be any dual-key arrangement between the United Nations and NATO. There must also be robust rules of engagement, allowing the use of overwhelming force for any attacks on NATO or on UNPROFOR. The scope and duration of the withdrawal mission must be limited. I do not advocate a date certain for ending it, but it must end promptly when all UNPROFOR and NATO troops are safely out. It must not be transformed at some point into a peace enforcement mission. Mr. President, the United States cannot stand idly by while U.N. troops from allied nations are in mortal danger. The damage to U.S. leadership, honor, prestige, and credibility would be beyond calculation. These are not mere words. Credibility, prestige, and national honor are essential components of national security, as they have always been. They are especially important if we are to exercise the moral leadership expected of the world's only superpower. If Americans want to remain secure in today's violent and chaotic world, we must never permit doubts to exist in the minds of friends or enemies that our word is good, or that we can be relied upon to stand with our allies, or that we will keep our commitments. The credibility that comes from demonstrated steadfastness of purpose is a key aspect of deterrence. It is an essential though intangible element of global power, and of the necessary relations between states. A great nation cannot remain great very long without it. That is why we must end the charade of the U.N. presence in Bosnia, stand with our allies by assisting them to disengage, and then turn our attention to longer term solutions that will stop the agony in that troubled land. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator allow me about a minute and a half?

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator from Georgia, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for his appropriate and pertinent remarks on the situation in Bosnia. I strongly support the Dole-Lieberman bill and am pleased to be an original cosponsor of it. As the Senate begins consideration of S. 21, the Dole-Lieberman bill, this week, I ask that Members consider and discuss the very important issue of U.S. support for a United Nations withdrawal. This support, with the aid of NATO, requires a very close and careful consideration and discussion by the Members of the Senate. I yield the floor.

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 pay tribute to a woman who was well known and liked in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, Mrs. Frances Baker Allen Turnage, who passed away last month at the age of 70. Charleston ladies are known for their graciousness, hospitality, and elegance, and Mrs. Turnage was certainly a lady of Charleston in every manner. Born in the city, she was graduated from both the prestigious prepatory school Ashley Hall and Chevy Chase Junior College, and she attended the College of Charleston. A dedicated member of her community, Mrs. Turnage was active in a number of civic organizations, including the Junior League; the Ivy Garden Club; the Association of the Blind; and Grace Episcopal Church. Her efforts and work greatly benefitted her hometown and helped to make it such a special place to live. Mrs. Turnage led a full and rewarding life. She will be greatly missed by all those who had the pleasure of knowing her and my condolences go out to her husband, retired Maj. Gen. Benjamin O. Turnage, Jr.; her children, C.M. ``Chipper'' Allen, Ann A. Harris, Frances A. Sadler, Robin A. Rodenberg; her stepsons, Col. John O. Turnage and Rev. Benjamin W. Turnage; and numerous grandchildren and stepgrandchildren. They may all take solace in knowing their mother and grandmother was a very special lady.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee I am reporting on behalf of the committee an original bill entitled ``The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996,'' along with the committee report. I anticipate that the bill and its report will be available in the document room in the next few days. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for the fine work of the members of the committee as well as the outstanding efforts and long hours provided by all the committee's staff. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 343, the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. Regulatory reform is a critical issue which the Congress should act on promptly in order to significantly benefit our Nation. When unnecessary regulations are avoided or eliminated, American production will be more competitive and provide more jobs for American workers. With true regulatory reform, American consumers will have more choices at lower prices. We all are concerned that the health and safety of Americans not be compromised. By using more common sense, however, our Nation can achieve the same level of health and safety at far lower costs. Avoiding unnecessary regulations frees up our economic resources to be used for more important purposes. Every billion dollars saved by avoiding wasteful regulations is a billion dollars that the private sector can invest in new enterprises and new jobs. This will generate additional revenues to bolster our national defense, education, crime reduction, and other priorities. The principle of applying cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment to Government regulations is hard to seriously dispute. It is based on the simple concept that the Government should not impose rules and regulations unless the benefits justify all the costs. The legislation which we are now considering has been through numerous drafts and compromises in order to achieve this purpose. The bill articulates standards by which the costs and benefits of regulations are to be compared, and provides for judicial review of actions by the Government. The bill applies not only to new regulations as they are formulated, but also to existing rules. The legislation applies to relatively large regulations, which impose substantial costs. Importantly, risk assessments are standardized and must rely on the best available science. Mr. President, it is my belief that the principles in S. 343 are vital for this Nation. Great effort has been put forth to bring the bill to this point, and everyone involved in moving this bill forward deserves our thanks. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this regulatory reform legislation. In closing, Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] for the great job she has done on this important matter, which will be of such benefit to our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to submit a Senate Resolution which authorizes and requests the President to designate the weeks beginning September 24, 1995, and September 22, 1996, as ``National Historically Black Colleges Week''. It is my privilege to sponsor this legislation for the 11th time honoring the Historically Black Colleges of our Country. Eight of the 103 Historically Black Colleges, namely Allen University, Benedict College, Claflin College, South Carolina State University, Morris College, Voorhees College, Denmark Technical College, and Clinton Junior College, are located in my home State. These colleges are vital to the higher education system of South Carolina. They have provided thousands of economically disadvantaged young people with the opportunity to obtain a college education. Mr. President, thousands of young Americans have received quality educations at these 103 schools. These institutions have a long and distinguished history of providing the training necessary for participation in a rapidly changing society. Historically Black Colleges offer our citizens a variety of curricula and programs through which young people develop skills and talents, thereby expanding opportunities for continued social progress. Recent statistics show that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have graduated 60 percent of the black pharmacists in the Nation, 40 percent of the black attorneys, 50 percent of the black engineers, 75 percent of the black military officers, and 80 percent of the black members of the Judiciary. Mr. President, through adoption of this Senate Resolution, Congress can reaffirm its support for Historically Black Colleges, and appropriately recognize their important contributions to our Nation. I look forward to the speedy adoption of this Resolution.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, from the earliest days of our republic, the Supreme Court has always been one of the most important institutions in the land. Sitting at the top of the judicial branch, nine individuals pass judgment on cases of constitutional importance that are argued before them. Managing and administering this process is the Chief Justice, part referee, part historian, full time judge. It is a demanding job that requires patience, intelligence, and tact. I rise today to pay tribute to a man who excelled in that position, Warren E. Burger, who regrettably passed away yesterday. Warren Burger grew up on a farm in Minnesota, the Heartland of America. He worked his way through college and law school, earning degrees from the University of Minnesota and the St. Paul College of Law, before beginning his career as an attorney. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made Mr. Burger an Assistant U.S. Attorney General, beginning the Minnesotan's journey to the highest seat on the highest court of the land. Before joining the Supreme Court, Warren Burger would also serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. During the 17 years that he served as Chief Justice, the Court decided many issues that had a tremendous impact on American society. The results of many of the cases reviewed by the Burger Court came to be known as landmark decisions, ones that are likely to be studied by law students, professors, and historians for decades, if not centuries to come. It is not exaggerating to say that the actions of Warren Burger and his court did much to change life in America. In 1986 Warren Burger resigned as Chief Justice of the Court, ending his two decade presence there, to chair the Committee on the Bicentennial of the Constitution. I served on this committee and I worked closely with the former Chief Justice to promote this special anniversary in the history of our Nation. I found Chief Justice Burger to be a man of integrity, ability, and dedication, whose deep interest in American history made him an effective and enthusiastic spokesman for this undertaking. Mr. President, the Chief Justice and I differed on some issues, but he was an outstanding man who served this Nation ably and selflessly. He was a thoughtful adjudicator of cases, a strong advocate for the judicial branch, and most importantly, he cared for and believed deeply in the Constitution. He is a man who will certainly be missed by a host of friends, and I extend my deepest sympathy to the members of his family.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of this country's most distinguished military leaders, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, 30th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. General Mundy is retiring after 38 distinguished years of service to our country during which he has served this Nation honorably in a number of very important posts. Among these are the commanding general of the Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, the II Marine Expeditionary Force, and the Allied Command Atlantic Marine Striking Force. General Mundy has received numerous decorations for his service including the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart which he received while serving in the jungles of Vietnam. Mr. President, General Mundy is a leader, visionary, and a warrior. As he completes his watch, he leaves behind a Corps of Marines that is ready to respond instantly to the Nation's ``911'' calls, relevant to meet the defense needs of the Nation into the next century, and capable of meeting the requirements of today's national military strategy. As Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Mundy has been a central figure in shaping the post-cold-war military. He has acted as a principal author on a number of key Department of Defense white papers. Among these papers, ``From the Sea'' and ``Forward . . . From the Sea,'' have been instrumental in outlining the future role of naval and marine forces. He has been a tireless spokesman for the Department of Defense and has traveled extensively throughout the country to speak to citizens on key issues related to national security. Mr. President, it is with deep regret that I wish General Mundy and his wife, Linda, farewell. He has always provided us the benefits of his great wisdom. He has continuously lived up to the Marine Corps motto: Semper Fidelis. Mr. President, General Mundy is truly one of the few, one of the proud. He is, and always will be, a U.S. marine. Our Nation is proud of him, and we wish him well in the future. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3\1/2\ minutes as in the morning hour.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Records of March 23, April 24, May 11, 19, and 23, 1995, ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a man who is not only a dear friend, but someone who in the course of his life has done much to serve his State and Nation. Col. Lanning Parsons Risher was born in 1931 to one of the most distinguished and well-known families in South Carolina. His father ran the well-respected Carlisle Military School in Bamberg and was recognized throughout the State for his stature as an educator. Completing his preparatory studies at Carlisle, Colonel Risher felt comfortable in a military environment and decided to pursue his college education at The Citadel, a rigorous and demanding institution with a reputation for producing leaders. Upon his graduation from The Citadel, Lanning chose to serve his Nation in the military, earning a commission in the infantry of the U.S. Army. After fulfilling his military obligation, Colonel Risher joined the teaching staff of his alma matter, the Carlisle Military School, where he taught for 3 years. In 1958 a new opportunity and challenge presented itself to the young instructor and veteran, the chance to serve as the headmaster of the Camden Military Academy, a preparatory military school. Grabbing the reins, the new headmaster set out to make the Camden Military Academy a success. For the past 38 years, Col. Lanning Parsons Risher has poured his very life's blood into his school, working to not only make the academy profitable, but to ensure that his students received an education that could not be equaled by any other secondary military preparatory school. I am proud to say that my friend has achieved his goals. Over the past almost four decades, literally thousands of young boys entered Camden Military Academy and graduated as young men, capable and ready for the challenges of the military, college, or whatever other endeavor they believed to be their destiny. Mr. President, at the end of April, Colonel Risher's long and distinguished tenure as headmaster came to a close. I doubt a visit to the school will ever be the same knowing that Colonel Risher is not sitting in his office, administering to the needs of his charges. While I know that Lanning will no doubt miss the duties and responsibilities of running Camden Military Academy, he can take great pride in all that he has accomplished. Over the years, the colonel has received recognitions from a number of different groups. Committed to community service, Colonel Risher has served as a member and officer of an impressive list of organizations which include, but are not limited to: a bank; patriotic and veterans groups; civic clubs; and professional associations. There is no question that the city of Camden and the State of South Carolina have benefited from Lanning Risher's interest and commitment to so many worthwhile endeavors. In addition to meeting the demands of running the academy and being civically involved, Colonel Risher also managed to find time to pursue and earn a master's degree from the University of South Carolina and raise a family. Lanning and his lovely wife, Deane, raised five daughters--Julie, Helen Dean, Virginia, Mary, and, Kathleen--who have all grown into fine young women. Mr. President, after a long and full career as a soldier and educator, Col. Lanning P. Risher has earned a well deserved rest. We are grateful for the colonel's many years of service to his community, State, and Nation. Through his work, he has given thousands of young men the skills they require to be successful in their lives, instilling in them the values of a sound education, responsibility for themselves, and a love for their Nation. His former students are more than grateful for his influence on their lives, and they will always remember the contribution he made to their success.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to unanimous consent section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400, 94th Congress, I ask that S. 922 be referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend the leadership and the managers of the telecommunications bill, S. 652, for the amendment which was made to ensure that potential competition between telephone companies and cable companies will be maintained for the benefit of consumers. Until this amendment was made, I had serious concerns about S. 652 removing the current prohibition on mergers between local telephone exchange carriers and cable companies in their service regions, subject only to standard antitrust scrutiny. I was prepared to offer an amendment to the original language in the bill because it lessened the likelihood of vigorous competition developing between telephone and cable companies, with each offering the services of the other. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, I am particularly pleased that the amendment adopted to restrict telephone-cable mergers contains a savings clause which makes absolutely clear that the antitrust laws are maintained and will be applied by the antitrust enforcement agencies. Thus, even if the FCC grants a waiver as permitted in the amendment or a merger comes within the rural exception, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission still have the authority and the obligation under the law to consider whether any telephone-cable merger, acquisition, or joint venture violates the antitrust laws. Mr. President, antitrust analysis by the antitrust authorities is critical to promote competition between the two wires--cable and telephone--that already run to the home, and avoid a single monopoly provider of both cable and telephone services, which would result in higher cable and telephone prices for consumers. I am pleased that an agreement was reached in this area and that this amendment is now part of the bill. rural health providers

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, exactly 220 years ago today, a proud American institution was born, the U.S. Army. I rise today to not only recognize this important milestone in the history of the Army, but to pay tribute to all soldiers who have served their Nation, both in the past and in the present. For more than two centuries, America's soldiers have selflessly and successfully protected the freedoms and ideals of the United States, and America's soldiers have stood tall and fast wherever they have been deployed. From the Minuteman at Lexington with his trusty musket who started the fight for the independence of our Nation, to the G.I. equipped with night vision goggles, a Kevlar helmet, and the battle- proven M16A2 rifle on patrol along the DMZ in Korea, our soldiers have always distinguished themselves. The battle streamers of the Army flag stand as testament to the courage, fortitude, and abilities of those who have fought under this banner: Valley [[Page S8305]] Forge; New Orleans; Mexico City; Gettysburg; Havana; the Philippines; Verdun; Bataan; North Africa; Monte Cassino; Normandy; Arnhem; the ``Bulge''; Pusan; Seoul; the Ia Drang Valley; Grenada, Panama; Kuwait, and, Iraq represent just a partial list of the places where ordinary men brought distinction to themselves, the Army, and the United States by their actions. We must also not forget the many other campaigns and operations the Army has undertaken in its history, which have included: surveying the uncharted west coast; protecting western settlers; guarding our borders; assisting in disaster relief; providing humanitarian aid to other nations; and conducting medical research that benefits soldiers and civilians alike. There is simply no question that the U.S. Army has had a tremendous impact, in many different ways, on the history of our Nation and the world. Soon we on the Senate Armed Services Committee will begin our mark up of the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization budget, including the money needed to support the Army. Often our focus is on what weapon systems we need to fund, how many new tanks, field guns, or rifles we should purchase, but our chief concern is always providing for the soldier. We work to ensure that the young E-3 has a quality of life that is not beneath him, and that the soldier who dedicated his or her career to the Army and Nation is not forgotten. Each of us on the committee, and I am sure in the Senate as well, understands that it is the people--the newest recruit and the most senior general--who make up the Army and guarantee the security and defense of the United States. We may have an arsenal of smart bombs at our disposal, but it is the soldier who must face and defeat our enemies. Ensuring they have the best equipment, training, and quality of life possible are our highest priorities. This investment in our men and women in uniform pays a handsome dividend beyond the security of the United States. Countless numbers of people who have served in the Army have gone on to hold important positions in both the public and private sectors. Our first President, George Washington, was a general in the Army, as were Ulysses Grant, Zachary Taylor, and Dwight Eisenhower. Additionally, many former soldiers have gone on to serve in the Halls of Congress. In the House, there are some 87 individuals who served in the Army and in the Senate, 27 of our colleagues have worn the Army green. I know that each of us is proud of our association with the Army and that we have been able to serve our Nation as both soldiers and statesmen. Madam President, over the past 220 years, more than 42 million of our fellow citizens have raised their right hand and sworn to defend our Nation as soldiers. In each instance we have asked our soldiers to carry out a mission, they have done so with a sense of purpose, professionalism, and patriotism. We are grateful for the sacrifices these individuals have made and the example they have set for future soldiers. With a heritage as proud as the one established by our Nation's soldiers over the past 220 years, we know that the U.S. Army will always remain the finest fighting force that history has ever known.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Reserving the right to object. I would like 5 minutes following the Senator from California.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able and distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy and kindness. Mr. President, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that each of us breathed a sigh of relief when we learned last Friday of the rescue of Air Force Capt. Scott O'Grady, whose F-16 was shot down over war-torn Bosnia earlier this month. Probably no one was more relieved by the rescue of Captain O'Grady than the young pilot himself. After spending 6 days eluding hostile forces, enduring the wicked weather of the rugged Bosnian mountains, and surviving on bugs, rainwater, and vegetation, Captain O'Grady summed up his feelings when he yelled to his rescuers, ``I'm ready to get the Hell out of here.'' I am confident that was a sentiment that would be shared by anyone else who went through the experience Captain O'Grady did. Six days in the woods, hiding from enemy soldiers and surviving on things that you or I would rake up out of our garden or spray to exterminate is certainly an amazing feat. It is primarily thanks to the skills and knowledge that Captain O'Grady learned through Air Force escape and evasion training that he was able to come through this experience alive and unharmed. At every step of Captain O'Grady's 6 day ordeal, training was key. It was training that allowed Captain O'Grady to beat the Serbs in a high- stakes match of hide and seek; it was training that taught Captain O'Grady how to survive the elements with only the clothes he wore when he ejected from his plane; and it was training in tactical operations that allowed the U.S. Marines to fly into hostile territory and pull Captain O'Grady out of the reach of the Bosnian Serbs. If nothing else, this ordeal has hammered home the maxim ``train hard in peace to avoid mistakes in combat.'' Mr. President, let me change tack just for a moment to praise the efforts of all the individuals involved in this rescue operation, especially those of the U.S. Marines. Though each of the services have their own special operations forces, each with their important and vital missions, the Marines have once again demonstrated their worth as a force capable of going anywhere at anytime. I have no doubt that Captain O'Grady now has a special understanding of just what exactly the phrase, ``The Marines have landed,'' means. In many ways, what has transpired over the last week is a testament to the investment the United States has made in its Armed Forces, beginning about 15 years ago. Captain O'Grady's survival efforts were aided by the fact that he wore clothing designed to help withstand the harshest elements and he carried sophisticated communications and homing equipment that aided those searching for the captain in finding him. Had O'Grady actually had to defend himself against the enemy, he was carrying a modern sidearm that packs more than a dozen rounds in its magazine, a far cry from the .38 pistol that pilots of just a generation ago relied on as a survival and defense tool. Perhaps most impressive is that with a minimal amount of preparation and planning time, a rescue operation was mounted that required the combined efforts of at least the Marines, Navy, and Air Force. Such interservice cooperation and efficiency was not in existence just 12 years ago when the United States intervened in Grenada. Regrettably, all the things that we have worked so hard to achieve--a professional, well educated, well equipped military--that worked so well in Panama, Desert Storm, and now in Bosnia, are being threatened by those who would cut the defense budget. This is simply unacceptable, the United States needs a strong military that is ready and capable of meeting any enemy, anytime, anywhere. Let us hope that there is one more happy circumstance to come out of Captain O'Grady's survival and rescue--that President Clinton realizes we must keep defense spending at a level which ensures we maintain the best military forces ever known to man. That is the only appropriate course of action for our Nation to pursue.