J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Col. Thomas W. Shubert, a man many of us know through his duties working in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison, Congressional Inquiry Division. During his tour in the Congressional Inquiry Division, Colonel Shubert established a reputation for dependability and professionalism, and was firmly committed to helping us resolve issues involving our constituents and the Air Force. Additionally, Colonel Shubert lent support to many Members of both Houses on fact finding trips throughout the world. Mr. President, Colonel Shubert is an individual who reflects the highest standards of the Air Force and I am confident that he will distinguish himself in his new post as the Senior Military Advisor and Air Attache to Denmark.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the career and accomplishments of Col. Michael V. Harper, who is retiring after 26 years of distinguished service to the Army and the Nation. Colonel Harper began his career as a Distinguished Military Graduate when [[Page S8206]] he graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1969 and was commissioned a second lieutenant of infantry. In the months following his graduation from Infantry Officers Basic School, Lieutenant Harper earned two of the Army's most cherished qualification badges, airborne wings and a Ranger tab. After a tour with America's famed Honor Guard, the 82d Airborne Division, Colonel Harper was ordered to the Republic of Vietnam where he was assigned to the 1st Battalion (Airmobile), 327th Infantry, setting in motion a career that would bring him many commands and responsibilities. Among his many assignments over the next two decades, the colonel served as: commander, A Company, 18th Infantry; Executive Officer, 1st Battalion (Mechanized) 36th Infantry at Friedberg, Federal Republic of Germany; and, he commanded the 2d Battalion (Mechanized), 16th Infantry at Fort Riley, KS. In addition to his troop leading time, Colonel Harper attended the Command and General Staff College and the Naval War College; served as a staff officer and Chief of the War Plans Division; and finally, as Director of the Chief of Staff of the Army's personal staff group. In his capacity as General Sullivan's staff director, Colonel Harper helped the Chief of Staff transform the Army from a Cold War, forward deployed force into a power projection force ready to defend the Nation anywhere. Colonel Harper's keen insight, sound judgment, and able intellect have made a lasting contribution to the future of the Army and the continued security of the Nation. Mr. President, Colonel Harper has been a model soldier throughout his career. He embodies the traits that the military expects of those who choose to serve: integrity; loyalty, selfless service: and, concern for soldiers. He is a man who has served the Nation well and he has our appreciation for his dedication and sacrifices over the past 26 years, I join his friends and colleagues in wishing him good health and great success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents have?

Mr. THURMOND. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be required. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the motion to table the Thurmond-D'Amato-DeWine-Inhofe second degree amendment. Many things have been stated in this Chamber over the last several days about my amendment to protect competition and consumers by providing that antitrust principles will be applied by the Department of Justice in determining when Bell operating companies should be allowed to enter long distance. Now that we are about to vote on a motion to table, it is my belief that we must focus on just three basic points in deciding how to proceed on this pivotal issue. First, the opponents of my amendment assert that I am trying to add a second agency into the antitrust analysis of Bell entry. In fact, just the opposite is true--my amendment removes an agency. S. 652 currently provides that the FCC shall determine the public interest in consultation with the Justice Department. FCC consideration of the public interest requires antitrust analysis, as indicated by the courts and reiterated by FCC Chairman Hundt in testimony last month before the Congress. As drafted, therefore, S. 652 already requires antitrust analysis by both the FCC and Department of Justice. My amendment will reduce this redundancy, by prohibiting the FCC from conducting an antitrust analysis when determining the public interest. Instead, the antitrust analysis will be conducted exclusively by the Department of Justice, the antitrust agency with great expertise and specialization in analyzing competition. Second, the antitrust role of the Justice Department in analyzing entry under my amendment is in no way unusual or inappropriate. It is the same analysis that the Justice Department conducts routinely in determining whether companies should be able to proceed into new lines of business through mergers and acquisitions. Even the standard-- section 7 of the Clayton Act--is identical. Considering whether entry will ``substantially reduce competition'' prior to any harm occurring is equally important here as in other section 7 cases involving a merger or acquisition. This process protects competition and the American public from harm which can be avoided. Mr. President, we all strongly support competition. The question we are resolving today is whether we will continue to rely on antitrust law administered by the expert agency to protect competition, as we have since the early part of this century. I fear that failure to support my amendment will harm competition, which ultimately harms our constituents. These issues are critically important, and I believe that it is highly desirable to have an up or down vote on my modified second degree amendment. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to table. I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time is remaining?

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. THURMOND. I will use 30 seconds. The Senator can take the rest.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senate this. This amendment protects consumers and enhances competition. It does not gut this bill. That is an error. It provides for the Department of Justice to carry out the antitrust analysis of Bell company applications to enter long distance. This is the special expertise of the Department of Justice. My amendment limits the FCC to reviewing other areas and not duplicating DOJ. I am confident that this will reduce bureaucracy and eliminate redundancy of Government between roles of the DOJ and FCC. In other words, it leaves with the FCC to determine issues in which they have expertise. It leaves to the Justice Department determinations in which they have expertise. And that is the way it ought to be.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield any time I have left.

Mr. THURMOND. Although my amendment was tabled, we will be back. It is very important to have an up and down vote on this amendment. I have filed my amendment at the desk, and it will be in order after cloture. We will then get to the direct vote on this important amendment. Amendment No. 1264 withdrawn

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Thurmond- D'Amato-DeWine-Inhofe amendment which will protect competition and consumers by providing that antitrust principles will be applied by the Department of Justice in determining when the Bell operating companies should be allowed to enter long distance. I wish to explain a modification which I have made to this amendment. With this modification, which clarifies the separate roles of the FCC and the Department of Justice, Senator Dorgan has agreed to support my second degree amendment and not to seek a vote on the Dorgan first- degree amendment. I have appreciated working with Senator Dorgan, Senator Leahy, and their staffs, and wish to thank them for their cooperation and assistance in this important matter. The second degree amendment that I introduced last Thursday contained language to ensure that there is no duplication of functions between the Department of Justice and the FCC. This was accomplished in the amendment by limiting the public interest analysis of the FCC so that the Commission shall not consider the antitrust effects of entry. Analysis of the antitrust effects of Bell entry into long distance should only be conducted by the Department of Justice, the antitrust agency with great expertise and specialization in analyzing competition. The modification that I have made today clarifies that this restriction of the FCC applies only to FCC's public interest analysis of Bell entry into long distance. This clarifies the FCC public interest in a way that is entirely consistent with the original goals and purposes of my amendment and ensures that there is no duplication of functions. Although the FCC may appropriately consider competition in other aspects of its analysis, this specialized antitrust analysis prior to Bell company entry is to be conducted solely by the Department of Justice. Under my modified amendment, the antitrust standard applied by the Justice Department remains the Clayton section 7 standard. The standard is whether Bell company entry would substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. This is the standard applied to every merger and acquisition in order to determine whether companies can expand or move into new lines of business. That is the issue that requires analysis before Bell companies enter long distance markets. One issue I wish to emphasize is that my amendment is necessary to reduce duplication in the telecommunications legislation. Currently, S. 652 provides that the FCC will conduct a public interest analysis of Bell entry into long distance, with consultation by the Department of Justice. This results in both agencies being involved in antitrust analysis, which is wasteful and inefficient. The Department of Justice--and not the FCC--has developed special expertise and specialization in antitrust analysis during the past 60 years. I would also note that the language we are using from section 7 of the Clayton Act also appears in section 2 and section 3 of the Clayton Act. These sections deal with price discrimination and exclusive dealing arrangements which may harm consumers by inhibiting competition in the marketplace. Thus, not only is this standard familiar because of the experience and case law under section 7 of the Clayton Act, but also because of sections 2 and 3. We all strongly support competition. We all support competition replacing regulation. The question is how to make sure competition exists, and whether competition is achieved by a fixed list of rules or by flexible antitrust analysis. Mr. President, the bottom lime is whether we believe the antitrust laws are the means by which we protect competition or not. It is that simple. If we believe in the antitrust laws--which have protected free enterprise for over 100 years--then we should pass the Thurmond - D'Amato - DeWine - Inhofe amendment. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Dorgan as a cosponsor of my second-degree amendment, as modified. Additionally, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kohl as a cosponsor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the life of a good friend of mine, and one of our State's leading citizens--William Walter Wilkins, Sr.--who passed away recently. Born in the South Carolina ``Upstate'', Mr. Wilkins became one of the most prominent and well liked citizens of the region. A gifted athlete, ``WW'' was active in a number of sporting activities, including playing 4 years of varsity basketball, before his cum laude graduation from Furman University. Soon after he earned his law degree from that prestigious institution in 1929, William began to establish a well deserved reputation as a capable and dedicated attorney whose integrity was unimpeachable. Mr. Wilkins was forced to put his law practice aside to serve in the Navy during World War II, but upon his return to the United States, he founded the Wilkins Law Firm and remained its senior partner until his retirement in 1992. A civic minded individual, Walter was actively involved in many community activities and was recognized as an important regional leader. In addition to being a member of the Greenville County and South Carolina Bar Associations, he belonged to a number of other civic groups and organizations. He was the Past Commander of the James F. Daniel, Jr. American Legion Post; a past Master of the Walden Masonic Lodge; and, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Greenville County American Legion Fair Association, where he served as chairman for 44 years and helped to raise many thousands of dollars to support the Legion. His commitment to civic service earned him many recognitions and awards from groups as diverse as the American Legion, the City of Greenville, and the Governor of South Carolina who presented him with our State's highest award, ``The Order of the Palmetto''. Perhaps the one thing that Walter Wilkins loved more than practicing law was his family. He was very devoted to his lovely wife, Evelyn, and their three children: Nancy Wilkins Lydon; Judge William W. Wilkins, Jr.; attorney and Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, David H. Wilkins; and Dr. Robert T. Wilkins of Denver, Colorado. As a class project, one of Walter's grandchildren wrote a short essay about him, and I would like to share an excerpt of it with you: My grandfather, Walter Wilkins or ``Papa'', has had a great influence on my life. Thanks in large part to ``Papa'', our family name is well respected in the community. Having a family tradition of which I am very proud means a great deal to me. I was not really aware that ``Papa'' did more for us than simply give us a little money at Christmastime until my entire family gathered for a ceremony in ``Papa's'' honor by a well-known organization in Greenville County. The speaker talked a great deal about ``Papa's'' many contributions to the community. It was then I realized how much we owe ``Papa'' for our good name and reputation. ``Papa'' is not as strong and healthy as he used to be, and I'm afraid he won't be with us for too many more years. But his contributions to our family will live on. He has given us a legacy of integrity and honor, and taught us to always do our very best. I know that's why he tried so hard to make clear to his children and grandchildren when he would stress hard work in our schoolwork and athletics. I can still picture in my mind playing football and other sports in his backyard and looking up at the window and making eye contact with him sitting there watching me play, pulling for me to always do my best. Certainly a moving and fitting tribute to a unique man. All those who knew Walter Wilkins, Sr. share the sense of loss his family must feel and they have our deepest sympathies on the passing of their father and grandfather.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of our country's finest soldiers, Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, the Chief of Staff of the Army, who is retiring after a distinguished 36-year career. General Sullivan began his service in 1959 when he was commissioned a second lieutenant of armor upon graduation from Norwich University. He commanded troops at every level from platoon to division, including the 1st Infantry Division, and served two tours of duty in Vietnam. He also spent an extensive amount of time overseas, serving four tours in Euorpe and one in Korea. General Sullivan held a number of increasingly important duty positions at the corps, NATO, and Department of the Army levels. He influenced a generation of leaders at the Command and General Staff College, where he served as the Deputy Commandant. Throughout his career he exemplified selfless devotion to duty and totally committed leadership. I believe history will show that General Sullivan led the Army through one of its most challenging periods with exceptional skill, courage, and wisdom. Most importantly, he preserved the Army and its high standards of excellence during the turbulent post-cold-war drawdown, and positioned the Army for the future. He is widely and rightly acknowledged as a visionary thinker, both within military and private industry circles. The Army of the 21st century will regard General Sullivan as the bold, courageous architect of a preeminent military force which is able to apply technology to maximum advantage. Mr. President, our Nation owes General Sullivan its deepest appreciation for his truly distinguished service. I wish him and his wife, Gay, continued success and happiness in all future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to take this opportunity to commend Sheila Burke for the great job she has done and the service she has rendered to this Senate and to this country. She is a lady of ability, integrity, and dedication. We have been very fortunate to have her to serve as she has done so faithfully. I also would like to congratulate Kelly Johnston for assuming the secretaryship of this Senate. This is a very important position. It involves many activities that concern all of us, and I am sure, since he is going to run the service, it will be efficient, capable, and helpful to this country.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Not yet.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators D'Amato and DeWine to offer an amendment to ensure that fundamental antitrust principles will be applied by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to determine when the Bell Operating Companies should be allowed into the long distance and manufacturing markets. My amendment establishes a legal standard to be applied by the Justice Department based on section 7 of the Clayton Act, which the Congress passed in 1914. Under this standard, the Bell companies would be permitted to enter into long distance and manufacturing unless the effect of entry would ``substantially lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly.'' Section 7 of the Clayton Act is the well-established and well-known standard used nationwide to determine whether mergers and joint ventures--which affect the economic course of our country--are pro- competitive or not. Indeed, we rely on this Clayton section 7 standard even in areas of national security, as in the recent merger of defense giants Lockheed and Martin Marietta. In the same way, this antitrust standard should be used to determine whether competition and consumers will be served by Bell company entry into new markets. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, I firmly believe that we must rely on the longstanding bipartisan principles of antitrust law in order to move as quickly as possible toward competition in all segments of the telecommunications industry, and away from regulation. Applying antitrust concepts is vital to ensure that free market principles will work to spur competition and reduce government involvement in the industry. The standard for permitting Bell company expansion from their local exchange markets into long distance and manufacturing may well be the most important antitrust question in this legislation. This issue results from the 1982 antitrust settlement which divided the single Bell system monopoly into the seven regional Bell companies, and limited the lines of business they could pursue. The debate centers on whether those seven Bell companies should be allowed into long distance and manufacturing markets while maintaining their current market position in local telephone service. The concern is that despite detailed rules, the Bell companies may be able to use their market power in local telephone service to harm competition in the long distance [[Page S8005]] and manufacturing markets where competition already exists. It is generally desirable to have as many competitors as possible in each market. I want to make clear that the Bell companies certainly should be allowed to enter long distance and manufacturing under appropriate circumstances. The question is merely when. But the Bell companies should not be allowed to enter without consideration of whether their entry will harm competition. S. 652 does not require antitrust analysis on this point and provides only a minimal consulting role for the Department of Justice. As drafted, S. 652 allows the Bell companies to get into the long distance and manufacturing markets if they meet a checklist and the FCC finds that entry is in the public interest. The checklist is intended to permit other companies to enter the Bell companies' local exchange markets and compete with the Bells. But the checklist does not require that anyone actually compete with the local exchange monopoly. Moreover, S. 652 appears to require only a single interconnection agreement between a Bell company and a potential competitor--no matter how small--before the Bell company can seek to enter long distance. Mr. President, I am not confident that this checklist will be adequate to take the place of thorough antitrust analysis. It would be unwise to ignore antitrust analysis. It would be unwise to ignore antitrust principles and risk harm to the substantial competition which has developed in telecommunications markets over the last dozen years through the application of antitrust principles. The Clayton section 7 standard in my amendment is much more moderate than the so-called ``8-C'' test from the Modification of Final Judgment which broke up the Bell system monopoly. It is my belief, as one long interested in competition and our antitrust laws, that the language from Clayton section 7 is the best standard to employ. This standard permits the flexible analysis needed to determine when the Bell companies should be allowed to enter into long distance and manufacturing markets. The Clayton section 7 test would permit Bell company entry into long distance and manufacturing unless entry would substantially lessen competition. Clearly, we should not permit entry which would not only lessen competition, but would substantially lessen competition. The Clayton section 7 standard is well understood and can be fairly applied to ensure ongoing competition in telecommunication markets. The Clayton standard has been applied in each merger in the telecommunication industry, including several large recent ones. This standard provides the proper incentives to the Bell companies to encourage them to open local monopolies to competition, rather than meeting the minimal requirements of a checklist. Let me make very clear that this Clayton section 7 standard does not necessarily require the Bell companies to lose any market share or even face actual competition in their local exchange markets. The Bell companies often assert that their entry into long distance and manufacturing would benefit competition. If this is true, they could enter those markets promptly under a Clayton section 7 standard, because competition would not be substantially lessened. Although the Bell companies may not support this standard, it is noteworthy that in the past Bell companies were less critical of the more stringent 8-C test. In fact, there was agreement among Bell companies concerning the 8-C test in the last Congress when negotiating over telecommunications legislation. If the higher standard of the 8-C test was acceptable last year, the familiar Clayton section 7 standard should be considered far more reasonable. If this antitrust analysis is to be undertaken, as I and many other Members believe it should, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has the necessary background and expertise to conduct the analysis. The Justice Department has some 50 attorneys and other professionals with antitrust expertise in the telecommunications area. The Justice Department was responsible for the breakup of the Bell system monopoly which has resulted in significantly greater competition, and has been continually involved in the industry since that time. It would be redundant and inefficient to ignore the proven track record and expertise of the Justice Department and begin to develop such know-how in another agency. The Federal Communications Commission does not have expertise in antitrust law, and history shows that it is not desirable to attempt to develop antitrust expertise across a range of Federal agencies. For example, it is now recognized that the Department of Transportation did not give adequate weight to antitrust principles when it conducted its own antitrust analysis of airline mergers. Although the Justice Department had a consulting role, the Transportation Department disregarded the important antitrust expertise of the Justice Department, and approved deals which have resulted in excessive concentration in the airline industry, and higher prices for consumers. It is vital that we avoid this mistake here. Mr. President, these antitrust issues in the telecommunications legislation affect a huge sector of our economy, and impact every consumer and business in our Nation. The hearing by the Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, which I chaired last month, confirmed the importance of ensuring that S. 652 embraces antitrust principles which are adequate to encourage competition and benefit consumers. These principles have been tested and refined by more than 100 years of antitrust analysis and experience in our Nation. The purpose of the antitrust laws is not to favor one group over another, but to apply objective principles to encourage competition for the benefit of consumers. When antitrust principles are observed, competition is maximized resulting in lower prices, better services and products, and more innovation for the benefit of consumers and our Nation. If antitrust principles are ignored, however, competition is likely to suffer and concentration of market power in a few companies may lead to harm to consumers, less innovation, and the end of our country's leadership in telecommunications. Finally, I would note that despite the current claims by some, this important issue of Bell company entry generally has not been partisan in the past. In addition to the concerns of Democratic Members and the current Administration, Republicans have long been champions of applying our antitrust laws in the telecommunications field. In fact, the break up of the Bell system monopoly resulted from the antitrust investigation by the Justice Department begun during the Nixon Administration, from antitrust litigation brought by the Justice Department during the Ford Administration, and from the settlement by Assistant Attorney General William Baxter during the Reagan Administration. In fact, Mr. Baxter wrote to me last month on this subject, encouraging an ongoing role for the Department of Justice in determining when the Bell companies should get into other lines of business, which I included in my Antitrust Subcommittee hearing record. The current antitrust head at the Department of Justice asserts that same position. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, providing for the adequate defense of our Nation is a concern that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on National Security take quite seriously. Political differences are pushed aside in order to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are well provided for, both in the equipment they require to do their jobs and in being compensated for their sacrifices in service to the United States. Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of men and women on these committees who have demonstrated their commitment to our personnel in uniform and for the security of the United States. One of the most serious-minded and analytical of this group was the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, who unexpectedly passed away recently after suffering a massive stroke. A graduate of Yale, Oxford, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Les was a man who dedicated almost his whole adult life to the national security field. Les entered government service with Robert McNamara and served in the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. After deciding to leave the Department of Defense, Les turned to academia and taught economics at Marquette for a year before running for, and being elected to, Congress where he served from 1971 until 1993. It was during those years that I came to know Les well, especially as he climbed the leadership ladder of the House Armed Services Committee. As its Chairman, he surprised, and even angered, a number of people with his stands in favor of the MX missile, aid to the Contras, and for his support in our military efforts against Saddam Hussein. He assumed these positions because he studied the issues, weighed their costs and benefits, and acted in a manner that was in the best interests of the United States. In 1992, his role as an advocate for the armed services brought him to the attention of then newly elected President Clinton, who decided that Les would make an ideal Secretary of Defense. Resigning from his powerful seat in the House, Les again heeded the cry of service and assumed the Secretary's job, a position that some said he coveted and many thought him ideal to hold. Unfortunately, his tenure in this post is not remembered with as much admiration as was his service in the Congress. [[Page S8020]] The truth of the matter is that being the Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton was no easy task, especially in the first days of his administration. President Clinton wanted to end the ban on gays in the military, envisioned turning American troops over to the United Nations, cutting defense, and committing U.S. forces to various humanitarian and peacekeeping operation. As the man charged with implementing these policy objectives, Les had an uphill struggle from the time he stepped foot in the Pentagon. Given all the obstacles placed before him, Les did a commendable job of working for the defense of the United States. Mr. President, Les Aspin was a man who was pleased to be able to serve his Nation and he worked hard in each endeavor he undertook. Some say his zeal for work is what killed him, but I prefer to think that he gave his heart for his Nation. We all appreciate the sacrifices and contributions that he made during his life and he will be missed by all those who knew him.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, I was pleased to work with Senator Nunn, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, along with Senators Hatch, Dole, Biden, and Craig to draft this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to have military assistance available to help Federal law enforcement in emergency situations that involve chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. In 1982, the Congress passed and then President Reagan signed into law a bill to authorize military assistance in instances involving nuclear devices. I supported that legislation in 1982 and believe it is now appropriate to extend that law to cover chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. We have been careful to limit military assistance to circumstances that pose a serious threat to the interests of the United States and where civilian expertise is not readily available to provide the required assistance to counter the threat posed by the chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, I believe this amendment will provide valuable assistance to law enforcement to protect the American people should we face terrorists with chemical and biological weapons. We have been careful to include safeguards to ensure that the military is not involved in routine law enforcement. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, James Boyd ``Jim'' Kluttz passed away last month at his home in Laurens, SC, and I would like to offer his family and many friends my deepest condolences for their heavy loss. A dedicated reporter, Mr. Kluttz served as editor emeritus of the Laurens County Advertiser following his retirement from the paper in 1981. His tenure with the paper began in 1966, and Mr. Kluttz photographed and reported upon the people and places of Laurens County for the next 15 years. His colleagues described his love and commitment to the people of Laurens as follows: ``(Mr. Kluttz') was the kind of journalism that reflects the heart and soul of a community and all that is good in it * * * and, in many ways, he was the soul and conscience of our community.'' Clearly, Mr. Kluttz practiced the kind of journalism that, unfortunately, is now all too rare. Mr. President, I know I speak for all those who knew Jim Kluttz when I say that he will be missed greatly. My heartfelt condolences go out to his wife, Alma Wyatt Kluttz, his two sons, James Thomas Kluttz and John Boyd Kluttz, his daughter, Laura Anne K. Smith, and their families for the loss they have suffered.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this month in Greenwood, SC, a terrible, sudden loss has been suffered by the entire community. On May 4, James C. ``Jim'' Self--successful businessman, committed public servant, concerned community leader, and dedicated family man--was tragically killed in a traffic accident which no one could have anticipated. Respected for his position as chairman of the board of Greenwood Mills Inc., Mr. Self was born and raised in Greenwood and went on to earn a bachelor of arts degree from Clemson University and a masters of business administration from the University of South Carolina. Throughout his life, Mr. Self established a well deserved reputation as a civic leader whose activities included service on the Greenwood board of Bankers Trust, the State board of NCNB, and the boards of Benedict College, Junior Achievement, and the Greenwood YMCA. In addition, Mr. Self served on the Governor's Review Board under John West, for which he was awarded the South Carolina Order of the Palmetto. He was also a member of the First Baptist Church of Greenwood. Let us make certain that we remember with respect and admiration the substantial contributions this outstanding citizen made to his family, his community, and the State of South Carolina. Mr. President, I know I speak for all those who knew Jim Self when I say that he will be missed greatly. My deepest sympathies go out to his wife--Linda Coleman Self--and children--Linda Elizabeth Self, James C. Self III, and Furman Coleman Self--and the entire Self family, including his distinguished father--Mr. James C. Self--for the tremendous loss they have suffered.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during my tenure as a Member of this distinguished body, I have had the pleasure of serving with many individuals of impressive character and ability. Few, however, possessed the unwavering commitment to principle and public service demonstrated by Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who passed away this week at her home in Skowhegan. I would like to offer her family and friends my deepest condolences for their loss, a loss suffered by our entire Nation. After an accomplished career of 8 years in the House of Representatives, Mrs. Smith was first elected to the Senate in 1948 and served four consecutive terms. A political leader of national stature, her substantial talents earned her a prominent role in Republican Presidential contests. Mrs. Smith brought grace and wisdom to this Chamber as a dedicated representative of the people. An intrepid spirit characterized her work as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I had the pleasure of serving with her. At all times, the safety and prosperity of the Nation were her sole objectives, and she worked to ensure that the United States was always prepared to defend liberty against any enemy. When our Nation was gripped in turmoil, Mrs. Smith was quick to supply raging debates with needed perspective and calming insights. She personified the very best qualities that define the American character and applied those commendable attributes to all of her work as a Member of this institution. Mr. President, I am confident I speak for all of us who knew Margaret Chase Smith when I say that she will be greatly missed. Her legacy is a standard of public service toward which every Member of the U.S. Senate should strive, and my sympathies go out to all those touched by her warmth and intelligence.