J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Hollings, to introduce the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor Act of 1995. This legislation would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote the natural, historical, cultural, and recreational resources of the region which have national significance. A companion bill, H.R. 1553, was introduced in the House of Representatives on May 3, 1995. Specifically, this legislation would establish a national heritage corridor in South Carolina running from the western Piedmont down along the Savannah Valley toward Augusta, GA, then following the route of the old Charleston to Hamburg Railroad along the Ashley River Road to Charleston. This route contains 14 South Carolina counties: Oconee, Pickens, Anderson, Abbeville, Greenwood, McCormick, Edgefield, Aiken, Barnwell, Orange- burg, Bamberg, Dorchester, Colleton, and Charleston. Further, this measure would establish a 23 member Commission, consisting of county representatives, South Carolina State officials, and Federal officials, including the Director of the National Park Service. It authorizes the Commission to oversee the development and implementation of a corridor management action plan. This plan will inventory the resources of the heritage corridor and discuss advisory standards for the use and promotion of those resources. Mr. President, let me emphasize that this legislation protects private property rights and will not interfere with local land use ordinances or plans. The legislation requires the active participation of the Secretary of the Interior, who shall appoint Commission members, approve the corridor management action plan, provide assistance to the Commission, and report to Congress on the actions taken to carry out the act. Finally, this legislation requires that the Federal cost share percentage, including annual operating expenses, may not exceed 50 percent. However, non-Federal matching funds may be not only cash, but also services or in-kind contributions. Mr. President, the heritage corridor concept is a technique that has been used successfully in various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural resource protection, tourism, and economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Congress, recognizing that heritage corridors provide a flexible framework for governmental and private organizations to work together on a coordinated regional basis, has recognized and formally designated numerous heritage corridor areas throughout the Nation. Many more are in various stages of planning or development. The initiative to develop the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor is an outgrowth of a grassroots effort in my home State to promote the history, culture, natural resources, and economy of the region. County visitor councils, historical societies, and other private and government entities are now participating in this project. The corridor project was awarded a Federal grant for a demonstration project linking cultural and economic development. Another grant has been awarded to conduct a feasibility study and plan for the development and management of the corridor. That work is well underway and will be completed this year. As a result of those planning efforts, the corridor project has conducted a thorough asset inventory and is exploring management and marketing alternatives. The enactment of this legislation, to provide for national recognition, will permit the heritage corridor project to broaden its efforts to preserve and promote the resources of the corridor and to expand tourism and economic development in the region. Mr. President, I would like to describe some of the historic, cultural, and natural resources and sites of national significance which are contained in the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor. Let me begin by referencing correspondence between Dr. Rodger E. Stroup of the South Carolina State Museum and Ms. Joan Davis of the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. In his letter, Dr. Stroup describes the path of the corridor, noting many specific sites and areas of national significance. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Stroup's correspondence be printed in the Record following these remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 812 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 26 years ago, the Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. In considering the treaty, Chairman Fulbright prevailed on the Members of the Senate to ratify the NPT, because without it, the world would face a wide array of potential nuclear horrors--such as developing nations acquiring nuclear weapons to elevate their status or national power; regional powers resorting to the use of nuclear weapons to settle their differences; or ethnic or religious differences being settled with nuclear weapons. He foresaw a world where major powers like the United States might be held hostage by small, poor countries who possess a few nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, or, become drawn into a nuclear confrontation brought about by these small nations through a miscalculation or an accident. At the time the NPT was negotiated there were relatively few countries who had tested or possessed nuclear weapons. Those countries were the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China. They became known as the nuclear weapons states. All other states who did not possess or had not tested nuclear weapons became known as non- nuclear weapons states. Back in 1969, when the Senate voted to provide its advice and consent to ratification of the NPT, I was one of the 15 members who voted against ratification of the treaty. I voted against it because I had grave reservations about the treaty's goals and whether they could be achieved. I was concerned that if the United States ratified the NPT, it would be unable to fulfill its NATO responsibilities and commitments. I feared that the NPT would also foreclose the ability of NATO members to participate fully in the operations of the Alliance. Lastly, I was concerned that the nuclear weapons states, and in particular, the United States, would bear the huge costs of transferring nuclear technology for peaceful uses to the non-nuclear weapons states. Mr. President, the overall goal and purpose of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to prohibit the transfer, or acquisition and manufacture of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states. However, there are no enforcement mechanisms to prevent a non-nuclear weapons state from becoming a nuclear weapons state in the NPT. There are no sanctions for violations of the treaty. While the NPT requires the parties to pursue negotiations to end the nuclear arms race and bring about nuclear disarmament, the NPT cannot force an end to the race for nuclear weapons, nor can it force the destruction of all nuclear weapons. For that matter, the NPT cannot ensure that parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear weapons states or non-nuclear weapons states, do not withdraw from the Treaty if they decide they wish to acquire or develop a nuclear arsenal for their own national security reasons. In fact, the NPT has a withdrawal clause. The NPT only covers countries that have ratified the Treaty. For example, take the so-called threshold states which have developed nuclear weapons, Pakistan, and Israel, are not parties to the Treaty. Even if these countries signed the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states, there is no way to ensure that these countries will ever stop development of, or destroy, their nuclear arsenals. Mr. President, in the 26 years of its existence, the NPT did not free the world from the threat of nuclear weapons, and it will not do so in the future. It did, however, establish a global norm for nations to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and it has enjoyed the widest adherence of any arms control agreement. It is for this reason, that I rise today in support of extending the NPT. Let me qualify my statement of support of the Treaty by saying that I take no position on whether the Treaty should be indefinitely extended, or, extended only for a fixed period of time. I am concerned that the United States did not make any efforts to improve the NPT and make it a more viable agreement by strengthening its enforcement and inspection mechanisms. I went back and reviewed the Senate floor debate on the ratification of the NPT. Mr. President, despite wide adherence to the NPT, the world still faces the potential horrors of a nuclear exchange between regional states. The risk of the use of nuclear weapons by countries to suppress governmental factions, or settle old ethnic and religious disputes still exists today, as it did 26 years ago. Representatives of the international community have been gathered in New York City at the United Nations for the past month to determine the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Clinton administration supports indefinite and unconditional extension of the Treaty, while representatives from the non-aligned member states, led by Indonesia, Iran and Egypt, oppose indefinite extension. On March 16, a majority of Members of the Senate expressed their support for the administration's position of indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT. They also expressed concerns that the NPT would be seriously undercut if it is not indefinitely extended, dealing a major below to global nuclear nonproliferation regimes. Mr. President, the treaty can be undermined at any time regardless of its duration because there are no enforcement mechanisms or automatic sanctions. I remind my colleagues that as a non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT and member in good standing, Iraq, developed an illegal nuclear weapons program under the guise of a peaceful nuclear program, and it has been determined that Iran, under the guise of peaceful use of nuclear technology is pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program. Likewise, North Korea, a non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT was determined to have violated the NPT. Of course, it was never determined to be a member in good standing of the treaty. Lastly, even though not members of the NPT, India, Pakistan, and Israel, were able to secretly develop nuclear weapons programs. Representatives and leaders of a number of developing countries, or nonaligned member states, do not support indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty. They cite as reasons for their lack of support for the U.S. position, the lack of progress in concluding a comprehensive test ban. They claim that the nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled their nuclear disarmament obligations. They believe that the Treaty is discriminatory and that it sanctions the five nuclear powers' rights to hold on to their nuclear weapons and keep the non- nuclear weapon states as nuclear weapons ``have-nots''. Mr. President, I reject the rationale offered by the non-aligned states for not supporting extension of the Treaty. For the past decade, the United States and Russia have made unprecedented reductions in their nuclear forces--beginning in 1985 with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and more recently reducing strategic forces under START. Both President Clinton and President Yeltsin have agreed to discuss even further reductions to their nuclear weapons programs once START II is implemented. Prior to START entering into force, President Bush and President Gorbachev implemented unilateral reductions of United States and Russian tactical weapons. Since 1992, a testing moratorium has been in place in the United States, and the United States along with the other nuclear weapons states and members of the Conference on Disarmament have been negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty. Last month, the United States and the other four nuclear weapons states restated their support of negative security assurances in the United Nations. Additionally, negotiations will begin soon on a global ban on the production of fissile material for military purposes in the Conference on Disarmament. If these steps do not indicate a good faith effort on the part of the United States and other nuclear weapons states toward nuclear disarmament, I am not sure what else can be done. Representatives of the non-nuclear weapons states who want to poke the United States in the eye by not supporting indefinite extension of the Treaty, because they believe we have not reduced our nuclear arsenals to zero, or completed the negotiations on a comprehensive test ban, would do well to focus attention on their own efforts at reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons. How have they worked with their neighbors, and other countries, to build more positive relationships and confidence so that threat of attack and annihilation are reduced and countries do not feel compelled to acquire nuclear weapons for protection? The Clinton administration and other NPT signatories should stop wringing their hands over the period of time for which the Treaty should be extended. Instead they should be focused on using this month- long conference to enhance the viability of the NPT by making it a living document which enables and ensures multilateral enforcement of the Treaty's provisions. Parties to the NPT should have confidence that its members will comply with the provisions of the Treaty, be supportive of its goals and that the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology is eliminated. And, when a determination of a violation has been made by the international monitoring agency through its inspections and the United Nations Security Council has been notified, meaningful and appropriate actions or sanctions should be undertaken immediately. Mr President, once again, I rise to say that I support extension of the NPT. I only regret that the administration did not believe the NPT was important enough to strengthen it to make it a more viable and effective arms control agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1996 and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis explaining its purpose be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis explaining its purpose be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Colorado, Senator Brown. This amendment is appropriate to restore rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to its proper role. Rule 11 is an important weapon to prevent the filing of frivolous claims and contentions in Federal courts. Significant alterations to rule 11 went into effect on December 1, 1993, and several of these changes are not desirable. This is not an issue of favoring one party or group over another, but relates to the standards of veracity which apply to all advocates in Federal courts. The issue is whether we in the Congress are going to accept changes in rule 11 which lower the standards that attorneys must satisfy when filing claims and assertions in Federal court. This is an issue which is of importance to the American people, too many of whom already hold lawyers and our system of justice in low regard. The Congress is ultimately responsible for both the laws and the procedures under which our Federal courts operate. We simply should not accept the 1993 changes to rule 11. The amendment by Senator Brown will correct undesirable changes in rule 11, while maintaining other changes in the rule which improve the administration of justice. The most critical correction made by the Brown amendment would require all factual contentions made in writing to a court to have evidentiary support or be well grounded in fact. The 1993 changes in rule 11 permit a party to make contentions which are likely to have evidentiary support after further investigation or discovery. It is important to correct this change in rule 11 to prevent litigants from making broad assertions in the hope that they will be able to support them through future discovery. On the other hand, I am pleased that Senator Brown agreed to my suggestion to incorporate the long-standing standard that contentions must be well grounded in fact, because requiring every contention to have evidentiary support prior to discovery might be too high a standard and preclude claims and assertions that should be permitted. Mr. President, I consider the Brown amendment to be desirable to restore the standards of rule 11. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last week, when most of us were home visiting our constituents, our two colleagues from Oklahoma faced a terrible disaster in their State. A 4,000-pound bomb detonated outside the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, not only destroying that structure and killing dozens of innocent men, women, and children, but taking a tremendous toll on the psyche of all Americans as well. For years the United States has largely been spared the indignity of terrorist acts within its borders, but all that seems to have changed recently. In the last 2 years, we have suffered two deadly bombing attacks in the United States, one in New York City and last week's in Oklahoma City. While the images of injured and shocked people stumbling through the streets of Manhattan were disturbing, there was perhaps no sight as unsettling as seeking the near lifeless body of a young baby that was caught in last week's blast being passed from a police officer to a firefighter. Tragically, the child died and with it died a piece of our innocence. For the bomb that destroyed that building was not built by the hands of cold-hearted, calculating, and well financed foreign terrorists. Quite the contrary, the man who authorities believe is responsible for the bombing is a young American. How, we all wonder, could an American do this to his fellow citizens? While we despise those responsible for bombing the World Trade Center, the attack in Oklahoma City, America's Heartland, seems so much more disturbing. When we think of terrorist actions against the United States, we think only those outside our borders would wish to do us harm. It is inconceivable to us that a fellow countryman would possess a hatred so deep and inflamed that he would be motivated to act against our Nation. How could one American commit an act that equates with premeditated, mass murder against other Americans? There is no answer and perhaps that is what is so disturbing to us. The events of the last several days have happened at a breakneck pace and it is sometimes hard to maintain a focus and perspective on just what has occurred. We must remember, that as of this morning, 78 people, many of them Government servants, too many of them children, lost their lives for no logical or explicable reason. That thanks to tireless efforts of hundreds of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, suspects in this crime were quickly identified and are being rapidly brought to justice. We discovered that there is a whole subculture of people who are fearful of their lawfully elected representatives. Some of these people believe that the Government is involved in the conspiracy to go to war against the citizens of the United States, and that they must protect themselves from their own Government. While we truly do live in a world that is filled with dangerous people, it is also a world where the good outnumber the bad. Volunteers and relief supplies continue to pour into Oklahoma City, and people throughout the United States have banded together in shows of faith and sympathy for those who died or lost loved ones. Most of all, we were reminded that America is still a very unique place, and it is a shame we must literally fear one of our neighbors might wish to destroy what is so special to all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we in the Senate were shocked to hear the news of the passing of a cherished friend and a former colleague: former Senator John Stennis from Mississippi. Senator Stennis served in this Senate Chamber for 40 years--from the time of his election to the Senate in 1947, through his retirement in 1989. During that time, he dedicated himself to giving our Nation the gift of wisdom and leadership. Senator Stennis was greatly admired by all who had the honor to serve with him. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he served with several Presidents; during that time he led the committee through the darkest days of the Vietnam war. Although he often saw his position on that war opposed by some of his fellow Democrats, he always did what he believed to be correct and in the best interest of our Nation. For many years, Senator Stennis and I were neighbors in the Russell Building. I recall with great fondness the kindness and good cheer he showed to me and my office staff on the many occasions he stopped in to say hello. Senator Stennis completed his Senate career by serving with great distinction as President pro tempore of the Senate. I had the honor of serving with Senator John Stennis for almost my entire Senate career. Throughout the years, I came to appreciate and respect his qualities of integrity, ability, and dedication. Mr. President, John C. Stennis was a great American. He was a dedicated Senator who proudly represented the people of Mississippi with great distinction. We have lost a colleague, we have lost a leader; but most of all, we have lost a friend.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Mack Fleming, who has recently retired as minority staff director of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, after more than 20 years of service on the committee. A native of Hartwell, GA, Mr. Fleming was educated in the public schools of Anderson County, SC. He graduated from my alma mater, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, after which he entered the U.S. Army. He also earned a law degree from the Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC. In the military, he served with the 2d Armored Division in Europe and he was a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve. Mr. Fleming has a long and distinguished career in public service, both in the Congress and the executive branch. He began that career in 1960 as the administrative assistant to Congressman William Jennings Bryan Dorn, of the Third Congressional District of South Carolina. In 1965, Mack Fleming moved to the executive branch, first as the director and counsel of the Congressional Liaison Office at the Veterans Administration, then served as Special Assistant to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs. After a short interval, during which he was engaged in the private practice of law, Mr. Fleming returned to Capitol Affairs Committee. In 1981, ``Mack,'' as he is known among his friends and colleagues, became chief counsel and staff director of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where he served through the 103d Congress. For the past 3 months he has served as the minority staff director of the committee, retiring from that position last Friday, March 31, 1995. During his tenure, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to improve the medical care, compensation, and other benefits to our Nations' deserving veterans. Mack Fleming earned the respect of Members of Congress and staff because of his professionalism, knowledge, and ability. He worked with all sides on the issues, to ensure that all views were heard and to build consensus where possible. As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I appreciated Mack's expertise, experience, and skill as we worked together on many issues. The Congress benefited from his service and his leadership, and I know he will be missed. I congratulate this fine public servant, a man of integrity, capability, and character. I extend my best wishes to his wife, Elizabeth, and their children--John, who attends Clemson University, and Katherine, who practices law in Texas. I wish him well in his retirement, as he and his wife return to Seneca, SC, where I am sure they will enjoy the views, recreation, and quieter life on the shores of Lake Keowee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Judge Eugene H. Nickerson, a district judge for the Eastern District of New York, has rendered a decision in the Able versus United States case that declares a portion of the don't ask-don't tell policy in violation of the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution as it relates to six plaintiffs. While this is a narrow ruling, it is also, in my opinion, an incorrect ruling and must be appealed to the second circuit court. I have been assured by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice that an appeal is being formulated and briefs will be filed in a timely manner. A decision from the second circuit could come as early as this fall. The Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate worked hard to craft a constitutional policy that protects individual rights and yet provides our fighting men and women with the right kind of environment in which to build the highest morale, discipline, and esprit in their units. I wish to remind all of you that we bear a tremendous responsibility to our men and women in uniform. They rely on us to make certain they are given every opportunity to survive in combat. It is our responsibility to provide them the best places to train and live, the best equipment possible and the very finest in care for their families. In addition, we must not do anything that could reduce the soldiers' most valuable asset--unit cohesion. Today, Senator Nunn, Senator Coats, and I are addressing this recent court decision. We worked long hours producing the current policy and both of them agree with me that we need to let the judicial system complete its process. I am confident that the final decision will uphold the constitutionality of the new policy and that it will serve the military well.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations tomorrow morning at 10:30. Therefore, rollcall votes are expected throughout the day on Tuesday. Members are also reminded to be in the Chamber at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow for the official photograph of the 104th Congress.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 52-62 and 64-66, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk. Further, that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; and that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today a resolution commending Allen University in Columbia, SC, which is in the midst of a year-long celebration of its 125th anniversary. In 1870, Bishop John Mifflin Brown and the people of the Columbia Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church established a school for the education of newly-freed slaves in Cokesbury, SC, naming the school for the predecessor to Bishop Brown, Bishop Daniel Alexander Payne. The school was later relocated to Columbia, SC and in 1880, it was renamed for Bishop Richard Allen, the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. clergy and lay leadership for the African Methodist Episcopal Church, as well as scholars, attorneys, physicians, teachers, business and governmental leaders, and other professionals who have risen to prominent positions in our society. I hope my colleagues will join me in commending Allen University and extending our best wishes to the university under the leadership of Bishop John Hurst Adams and President David T. Shannon. So the resolution (S. Res. 99) was considered and agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Senate Resolution 99, relative to the Allen University in Columbia, SC; that it be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THURMOND

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

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last month the Senate debated the Defense supplemental appropriations bill. Although I supported this legislation, I expressed my dismay that the Appropriations Committee chose to fully offset the $1.9 billion supplemental from the fiscal year 1995 Defense budget. In a practical sense, that action cut the the readiness levels of our Armed Forces are teetering on the edge. Since 1985, the Defense budget has decreased by 40 percent in buying power. The 1995 Defense budget, which is being used to fund the Administration's ill-conceived foreign ventures, has already been reduced by $40 billion below the 1990 budget even without the reduction in purchasing power from inflation. Today, with this supplemental, we add insult to injury by further cutting the 1995 Defense budget to fund domestic programs. The committee's amendment to H.R. 1158 further reduces the already constrained Defense budget by over $200 million, including the $104 million in critical base closure funds, $27 million for projects to meet environmental responsibilities at our overseas base, and $69 million for NATO infrastructure funding. I must point out the irony here, in the committee's attempt to reduce funding, it may actually be increasing the cost to the Department by rescinding the NATO funds. I am advised that these funds have all been obligated and this rescission may require breaking contracts and therefore incurring additional costs. Possibly the most damaging effect this supplemental will have is on base closure. The recommendation to further cut the base closure account at a time when the Base Closure Commission is reviewing recommendations to add more bases to the closure list is, in my judgement, misguided. It does not make sense to reduce funds critical for the closing and cleaning up of bases--funds that are used to pay civilian severance, environmental restoration, and the civilian and military relocation costs associated with closing a base. These cuts, proposed by the Appropriations Committee, will not only delay the closure process, they will negatively impact communities that are desperately looking for alternative uses for these bases to speed up their economic recovery. Just last year, Congress rescinded $507 million in this same account and caused havoc to the closure process and our communities which are still trying to recover from the cuts. I have an amendment prepared to offer which will restore the funding for the base closure account. However, in order not to delay this process any longer, and after conferring with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction who assured me he would consider restoring the funds during the joint conference on the bill, I will not offer the amendment. Mr. President, let me close by stating that reducing the Defense budget every time there is an unexpected defense or domestic need requiring a supplemental is not a sustainable policy over the long term, nor is such a policy in the interest of our national security. The men and women of our Armed Forces expect better from the Senate. These dedicated individuals, who risk their lives daily and endure long separations from their families, have earned our support. I am committed to providing that support and hope my colleagues in the Senate and on the Appropriations Committee will join me in stopping this erosion to the Defense budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter addressed to me dated March 10, 1995, from John Deutch, Deputy Secretary of Defense, be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by the Senator from South Dakota, the Senate stand in recess.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 4, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there then be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 10:30 with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following: Senator Thomas for up to 30 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee for up to 30 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 10:30, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1158, the supplemental appropriations bill; and that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons to meet.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and its impact on U.S. national security. In my view, the administration's policy toward the ABM Treaty is fundamentally flawed and should be reconsidered. By seeking to perpetuate and expand the coverage of a treaty that is fundamentally outdated, the administration has created a number of problems. Let me briefly discuss these and offer an alternative approach. The ABM Treaty was intended to be the central feature of an arms control regime that would balance and stabilize the United States- Soviet strategic relationship. This agreement, as much as anything else, symbolizes the cold war doctrine of mutual assured destruction, or MAD--a belief that if the United States and the Soviet Union remain equally vulnerable to massive nuclear retaliation, neither side will have an incentive to attack the other. Today the cold war is over. And while the United States and Russia still differ over a variety of issues, there is no reason to perpetuate an adversarial relationship. Unfortunately, many government officials in Russia and the United States continue to cling to fundamentally outdated, cold war attitudes and policies. The way the administration has handled the ABM Treaty is a glaring illustration of this problem. Rather than seeking to define a new United States-Russian strategic relationship, the administration has decided to reaffirm a relationship based on mutual vulnerability and the threat of retaliation. Instead of seeking to replace or evolve the ABM Treaty regime, the administration is committed to preserving and even expanding the core principles of the ABM Treaty. It has sought to extend the philosophy of mutual vulnerability in two ways--by agreeing to multilateralize the treaty, and by attempting to extend its limitations to theater missile defense systems, which the treaty does not cover. By multilateralizing the ABM Treaty, the United States is not only endorsing the continuation of mutual vulnerability, but is also inserting this concept into its relationship with several of the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. Moreover, by including these countries in the ABM Treaty, we would give them a significant voice in, if not a veto over, key U.S. decisions on missile defense. of what the administration is doing to capture theater missile defense systems under the ABM Treaty. The administration has shown a willingness, if not an eagerness, to include detailed performance limitations on theater missile defense systems. Under the guise of clarification, the administration has come up with nothing short of a new treaty regulating theater missile defenses. The administration's overall approach to the ABM Treaty poses three overlapping problems, which might be viewed as near-term, mid-term, and long-term problems. Let me address each of these in turn and offer what I believe to be logical and achievable solutions. In the near-term, the United States must respond to an expanding array of theater ballistic missile threats by developing and deploying highly effective theater missile defenses. These threats are an undeniable and salient part of the new security environment. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. industry and our military services, we are well positioned to acquire highly effective theater missile defenses and to allow these capabilities to grow along with the threat. Unfortunately, the administration's current approach threatens to preclude promising theater missile defense options and establish an artificial technological ceiling on the growth of those systems that we do deploy. This approach is strategically unwise and legally unnecessary. The solution to this problem is relatively straightforward. The ABM Treaty simply states that non-ABM systems may not be given capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles and may not be tested in an ABM mode. Nothing in the treaty talks about the performance of non-ABM systems and it would be very unwise for us to get into the business of regulating these systems now. The answer is simply to define what a strategic ballistic missile is and to establish as a matter of U.S. policy or law that theater missile defense systems comply with the ABM Treaty unless they are actually tested against a strategic ballistic missile. A commonly used definition of a strategic ballistic missile, which the United States and Russia have already agreed upon, is a missile that has a range greater than 3,500 kilometers or a velocity in excess of 5 kilometers per second. If this definition were used, the United States and Russia would be free to develop and deploy a wide range of highly effective theater missile defense systems without having fundamentally altered the letter or intent of the ABM Treaty. Even if we take this step, however, we will still be faced with a mid-term problem. U.S. territory will inevitably face new ballistic missile threats, which our theater missile defense systems are not being designed to counter. North Korea already has an ICBM program in development and other countries will almost certainly be able to exploit readily available technology in order to acquire such capabilities. The administration is simply not preparing adequately for this threat. If the United States is to deal with this problem in an effective manner, the ABM Treaty will have to be altered to allow for the deployment of a robust national missile defense system. While we can begin immediately with the development of a national defense system that is in compliance with the ABM Treaty, eventually we will need relief from the treaty. This will be necessary in order to cover all Americans adequately and equally. Deployment of several ground-based missile defense sites, perhaps supplemented by enhanced mobile systems, could provide a limited, yet comprehensive defense of the United States. This could be achieved with relatively modest changes to the ABM Treaty, changes that would not undermine United States or Russian confidence in their deterrent forces. But even if we accomplish this goal, we would still be left with a long-term problem having to do with the fundamental purpose of the ABM Treaty. Ultimately, if the United States and Russia are to establish normal relations and put the cold war behind them, they will have to do away with the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, which lies at the heart of the ABM Treaty. This can and should be a cooperative process, one that leads to a form of strategic stability more suited for the post-cold-war world. Such a form of stability might be called mutual assured security and should be based on a balance of strategic offensive forces and strategic defensive forces. We must once and for all do away with the notion that defense is destabilizing and that vulnerability equals deterrence. If the United States and Russia are serious about reducing their strategic nuclear forces to levels much below those contained in the START II agreement, we must be able to fill the void with missile defenses. We can do this cooperatively with Russia and other concerned parties, but we must make it clear that the United States is intent on evolving away from an offense-only policy of deterrence. We will undoubtedly require strategic nuclear forces for the foreseeable future to deter a broad range of threats, but in a world of diverse and unpredictable threats, we can no longer rely on these exclusively. Mr. President, I hope the administration will reconsider the range of problems I have discussed today. I believe that there are reasonable solutions within reach, if only we seek them. An incremental approach that deals with these problems in phases may facilitate cooperation and help wean both sides away from the comfortable yet outdated patterns of the cold war. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish first to commend the able Senator from Nebraska for the fine statement he has just made. We have to realize that under the Constitution States do have rights. The Federal Government has only the authority which has been delegated to it in the Constitution. States have the balance of the rights, and we must not forget that.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee favorably reported the nomination of Vice Adm. Joseph R. Prueher for promotion to the grade of admiral and assignment as Vice Chief of Naval Operations. concerning this nomination be printed in the Record. The joint statement follows: Joint Statement of Senator Strom Thurmond, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senator Sam Nunn, Ranking Minority Member The Committee on Armed Services has reported favorably the nomination of Vice Admiral Joseph R. Prueher for promotion to the 4-star grade of Admiral, to serve as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Prueher has had a distinguished career. He is a graduate of the Naval Academy (with distinction). As a naval aviator, he served in Southeast Asia aboard U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, as a naval flight instructor at the Naval Air Test Center in Patuxent River, Maryland, and as Executive Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy. More recently, he served as Commander, Carrier Group One in San Diego, CA, where he was responsible for training battle groups preparing to deploy to the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf. In this capacity, he led the development of Maritime Joint Forces Air Component Commander capabilities for the Pacific theater. Today, he serves as the Commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea and as the Commander of NATO's Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe. As Commander Sixth Fleet, he has directed the execution of the Navy and Marine Corps multi-mission role in the Adriatic Sea and former Yugoslavia in United States and allied operations in support of the United Nations. His awards include the Legion of Merit (three Gold Stars in lieu of subsequent awards), the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with two Gold Stars in lieu of subsequent awards. From 1989 to 1991, he served as Commandant of Midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. During his period as Commandant, there was a well-publicized incident in which a female midshipman, Gwen Dreyer, was mistreated by her male colleagues. A number of the midshipmen involved in the incident were disciplined, though none were dismissed from the Academy. The responsibility for the investigation and action on the investigation was vested in the Superintendent of the Academy, Vice Admiral Virgil Hill. Admiral Prueher, as Commandant of Midshipmen, was in the chain of command, under which he exercised certain responsibilities with respect to the investigation and subsequent action. On April 28, 1992, he was nominated for promotion. The Committee began its normal review process when matters of this nature are involved in a nomination. While the nomination was under review, the President withdrew a number of nominations on September 9, 1992, including the nomination of Admiral Prueher. The Committee understood this was as a result of changes in Navy personnel requirements, and to provide an opportunity for further review in the Executive Branch of the Prueher nomination with respect to the issues that had been identified. On March 15, 1993, the President resubmitted the Prueher nomination for promotion to Rear Admiral. Over the next five months, the Committee reviewed the materials related to the manner in which the incident was handled at the Naval Academy, including the views of the Secretary of the Navy endorsing the nomination. A copy of the Secretary's letter is included at the end of this statement. On August 6, 1993, the Committee considered and favorably reported the nomination. The promotion to Rear Admiral was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1993. Rear Admiral Prueher was subsequently nominated for promotion to Vice Admiral on November 5, 1993. His nomination was favorably reported to the Senate on November 18, 1993, and was confirmed by the Senate on November 19, 1993. The material concerning the Committee's previous consideration of the Prueher nomination is retained in the executive files of the Committee. It is available for review by any Senator upon request.