J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Records of January 6, February 3, 8, 16, 22, 27, March 6, 8, and 14, 1995 and to save the expense of printing again.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act of 1995, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, and others. Our legislation would repeal the antitrust exemption which shields major league baseball from the antitrust laws that apply to all other sports and unregulated businesses in our Nation. This bill is a result of discussions between myself and Senators Hatch and Leahy following the recent hearing which I chaired on this important issue. I am particularly pleased that this legislation focuses on the ongoing policy issues relating to baseball's special antitrust exemption. The Hatch-Thurmond-Leahy legislation eliminates baseball's antitrust exemption, with certain exceptions, and is based on S. 416, the Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act, which Senator Leahy and I introduced on February 14, 1995. One substantive change has been made to include a provision relating to franchise relocation, in order to address concerns raised by some about the practical effect of ending baseball's antitrust exemption. As I have previously stated, however, it is my belief that it may be worthwhile reviewing the franchise relocation issue as it relates to all professional sports. The Hatch-Thurmond-Leahy legislation would also maintain the status quo for the minor leagues. It is important to protect the existing minor league relationships in order to avoid disruption of the more than 170 minor league teams which exist throughout our Nation. the Hatch-Thurmond-Leahy bill also makes clear that it does not override the provisions of the Sports Broadcast Act of 1961, which permits leaguewide contracts with television networks. Our bill is not specially drafted in an attempt to resolve the baseball's current labor dispute. The legislation does not affect the so-called nonstatutory labor exemption, which shields employers from the antitrust laws when they are involved in collective bargaining with a union. Removing the antitrust exemption will not automatically resolve baseball's problems, but I believe it will move baseball in the right direction. I noted earlier that as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee, I held a hearing on baseball's antitrust exemption on February 15, 1995. At the hearing, the subcommittee heard from both players and owners on whether the exemption helps or hurts the sport, and what effect repeal would have on labor relations and other issues. the subcommittee very directly told the owners and players that it is up to them to resolve their differences quickly and play ball for the sake of the American public. Mr. President, I do not believe that the Congress should interfere in baseball's ongoing labor dispute. But it is my belief that the Congress should repeal the Court imposed antitrust exemption and restore baseball to the same level playing field as other professional sports and unregulated businesses. By removing the antitrust exemption, the players and owners will have one less distraction from their negotiations, and the Congress will no longer be intertwined in baseball's special antitrust exemption.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the able Senators, and the managers of the bill. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Line-Item Veto Act, which is presently before this body. For many years, I have been a supporter of giving authority to the President to disapprove specific items of appropriation presented to him. On the first legislative day of this Congress, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 2, proposing a constitutional amendment to give the President line-item veto authority. Presidential authority for a line-item veto is a significant fiscal tool which would provide a valuable means to reduce and restrain excessive appropriations. This proposal will give the President the opportunity to approve or disapprove individual items of appropriation which have passed the Congress. It does not grant power to simply reduce the dollar amount legislated by the Congress. Mr. President, 43 Governors currently have constitutional authority to reduce or eliminate items or provisions in appropriation measures. My home State of South Carolina provides this authority, and I found it most useful during my service as Governor in the late 1940's. Surely the President should have authority that 43 Governors now have to check unbridled spending. It is widely recognized that Federal spending is out of control. The Federal budget has been balanced only once in the last 34 years. Over the past 20 years, Federal receipts, in current dollars, have grown from $279 billion to nearly $1.3 trillion, an increase of $978 billion. In the meantime, Federal outlays have grown from $332 billion in 1975, to over $1.4 trillion last year, an increase of over $1.1 trillion. The annual budget deficits have risen to over $200 billion each year, with the national debt growing to over $4.8 trillion. Mr. President, it is clear that neither the Congress nor the President are effectively dealing with the budget crisis. The President continues to submit budgets which contain little spending reform and project annual deficits of nearly $200 billion. I am hopeful that this year Congress will undertake serious efforts to restrain Federal spending by reducing or eliminating funding of ineffective programs. If we are to have sustained economic growth, Government spending must be significantly reduced. A balanced budget amendment and line-item veto authority would do much to bring about fiscal responsibility. I regret that earlier this year the Senate failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, it would be a mistake to fail to pass this measure. It is my hope that this Congress will swiftly approve the line-item veto and send a clear message to the American people that we are making a serious effort to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. Finally, Mr. President, we must get on with the serious business of reducing spending. I thank the Chair. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. In June of 1989, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Texas versus Johnson which allows the contemptuous burning of the American flag. Immediately after that ruling, I drafted and introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn that unfortunate decision. After bipartisan discussions with Members of the Senate and President Bush, the Senate voted on a similar proposal which I cosponsored. During this time, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. versus Eichman that a Federal statute designed to protect the flag from physical desecration was unconstitutional. The Texas decision had involved a State statute designed to protect the flag. On June 26, 1990, the Senate voted 58-42 for the proposed constitutional amendment, 9 votes short of the two-thirds needed for congressional approval. Opponents of this proposed amendment claimed it was an infringement on the free speech clause of the first amendment. However, the first amendment has never been construed as protecting any and all means of expressive ``fire'' in a crowded theater or obscenities on a street corner as a means of expression, I firmly believe that physically desecrating the American flag is highly offensive conduct and should not be allowed. The opponents of our proposal to protect the American flag have misinterpreted its application to the right of free speech. Former Chief Justice Warren, Justices Black and Fortas are known for their tenacious defense of first amendment principles. Yet, they all unequivocally stated that the first amendment did not protect the physical desecration of the American flag. In Street versus New York, Chief Justice Warren stated, ``I believe that the States and the Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace.'' In this same case, Justice Black, who described himself as a first amendment ``absolutist'' stated, ``It passes my belief that anything in the Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense.'' Mr. President, the American people treasure the free speech protections afforded under the first amendment and are very tolerant of differing opinions and expressions. Yet, there are certain acts of public behavior which are so offensive that they fall outside the protection of the first amendment. I firmly believe that flag burning falls in this category and should not be protected as a form of speech. The American people should be allowed to prohibit this objectionable and offensive conduct. It is our intention with this proposed constitutional amendment to establish a national policy to protect the American flag from contemptuous desecration. The American people look upon the flag as our most recognizable and revered symbol of democracy which has endured throughout our history. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join the sponsors and cosponsors of this proposed constitutional amendment to protect our most cherished symbol of democracy.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from Arizona. Earlier this week, the administration announced that Croatia has agreed to allow U.N. peacekeeping troops to remain beyond the expiration of the U.N. mandate on March 31. If the United Nations had been forced to leave, fighting would probably have broken out between the Croatian Government and the Croation Serbs who control the Krajina region of Croatia. This would have reignited the conflict in Croatia, and it no doubt would have spread to Bosnia and the rest of the region. I have often been critical of the Clinton administration's inept diplomacy that has produced one foreign policy debacle after another. But in this case the administration deserves credit for persistence in a very difficult situation. I agree with Vice President Gore that the concession by Croatia's President Tudjman is ``* * * a major step away from war and toward peace.'' We have narrowly averted disaster--for the moment. But let us not congratulate ourselves too warmly or prematurely. If we are not careful, this limited and temporary success may breed a high degree of complacency, and blind us to the larger, impending crisis in the Balkans. As always, we seem to be reacting only to the crisis immediately at hand, instead of thinking ahead. While we still have a few weeks or at most 2 months, we had better start preparing for what may happen in Bosnia. Failure to anticipate and prepare now could lead to disaster later on. We are facing two deadlines. The most urgent deadline of course is the expiration of the U.N. mandate in Croatia on March 31. For the moment the situation in Croatia appears under control, even though the underlying problem that led President Tudjman to request the United Nations departure in the first place has not been solved. That problem is a de facto division of the country. The Krajina region, nearly one- third of the country, is under Serb control. Understandably the Croatian Government does not want to accept a partition that could harden into permanence. Although the continued U.N. presence in Croatia gives us some breathing space, it will not end Serbian domination of the Krajina or guarantee the end of conflict between Croatian forces and the Krajina Serbs. After all, there are plenty of U.N. troops in Bosnia, and they have not prevented fighting between the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serbs. The second looming deadline is May 1, the end of the temporary truce and current contact group negotiations in Bosnia. The present negotiations may be the last chance for a peaceful settlement. I hope and pray they are successful, but I fear this contact group effort may prove as fruitless as all the others. Furthermore, May marks the arrival of warm weather and the traditional resumption of military campaigns. If the people of this troubled region once again choose war over peace, we, in the Congress and the administration, are going to be faced with some very difficult choices. We had better start thinking dispassionately about those choices now, and not wait until we are overwhelmed by the passions of the conflict and terrible images of violence. If a general conflict erupts again across the region, the U.N. peacekeeping mission--UNPROFOR--could find itself in extreme danger. The administration has agreed to provide military assistance, including U.S. combat troops, to help cover the withdrawal of UNPROFOR if it should prove necessary. I have always opposed a general intervention in Bosnia with United States ground forces. But an UNPROFOR withdrawal is an entirely different situation. With the deepest reluctance I will support U.S. participation in a NATO mission to cover the withdrawal of UNPROFOR. The United States cannot stand idly by if U.N. troops from allied nations find themselves in mortal danger. The damage to U.S. leadership, honor, prestige, and credibility would be beyond calculation. Some will say that honor, prestige, and credibility are only words, empty words; that they are not worth the lives of young Americans who will have to go into the Balkans. It is true that leaders often misuse these words to manipulate public opinion on behalf of questionable causes. But they do have meaning, as ``justice'' and ``liberty'' are words that have deep meaning, and are words that we live by. Credibility, prestige, and national honor are still 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 we want to remain secure in today's violent and chaotic world, we must never permit any doubts 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. Therefore, I will support the participation of U.S. troops in such an operation, but only under certain conditions. First, it must be a NATO operation, totally under NATO command. Once our troops are committed on the ground and to potential combat, we cannot tolerate the so-called dual-key arrangement between the United Nations and NATO. This violates the most basic principle of sound military operations--unity of command. Unless the dual-key relationship is completely scrapped and replaced with clear lines of command and control under NATO, I will vigorously oppose U.S. participation in the withdrawal. This unified command authority must be established in advance. All governments with forces involved, and all UNPROFOR officers and NATO commanders at every level, must understand before the operation begins that NATO will be in charge, even in zones where the withdrawal proves peaceful. Second, the rules of engagement must not place any limitations on the use of force to protect the withdrawal. It must be clear to all parties to the conflict that we will not tolerate any attacks on NATO or on UNPROFOR. Any attack must be met with massive, overwhelming force; and not merely on the attacking forces, but on the offending party's military and logistical capabilities wherever they may be hit. We must also remember that while the Serbs are the primary aggressors and have committed the most atrocities, none of the parties in this conflict have clean hands. NATO and U.S. ground commanders must be alert to provocations from all sides. They must anticipate and respond appropriately to attacks from one party intended to blame another, and be careful not to retaliate against the wrong party. Third, the scope and duration of the withdrawal must be limited. I do not advocate a date certain for ending it. It must end promptly when all UNPROFOR and NATO troops are safely out. We must be especially careful not to allow the withdrawal mission to be transformed at some point into peace enforcement or a broadened combat mission that results in a general, prolonged engagement with Serbs, Croats, or Bosnians--as we learned to our great cost in Somalia. Fourth, we need to make it abundantly clear that a U.S./NATO rescue mission is not a blank check to the United Nations for the future. I believe the United Nations and our allies have been too eager to commit to dubious peace operations. The Bosnian dilemma is a result of such ill-conceived policies. The United States cannot rush to the rescue every time our allies find themselves in a tight corner because they did not consider the consequences of a misguided peace operation in advance, or took our help for granted. Our diplomacy and statecraft must make sure we are not faced with such a terrible choice ever again. The diplomatic success in Croatia has bought us some time. Let us use it wisely, and make sure the Congress and the administration are working together to face whatever crisis may come in the Balkans. Above all, let us use it to prepare the American people into combat to rescue our allies; and that may not be without risk. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, President Clinton recently issued an Executive order to ban the use of permanent replacement workers during labor disputes involving Government contractors. The Secretary of Labor would have the responsibility to enforce the order by asking Federal agencies to cancel existing contracts, or ban violators from future contracts. This Executive order is contrary to current law and, therefore, improper. It will deny to Federal contractors a legal right which is available to all other businesses; namely, the right to respond to union economic warfare by hiring permanent replacement workers. This is a fundamental legal right of all employers and should not be eliminated by Executive order. This administration asserts that the Executive order is simply a procurement policy under the discretion of the President. Yet, Congress has dealt decisively with this issue over the past 4 years by consistently rejecting legislation with the same objective as this order. Furthermore, the right to hire permanent striker replacements has been Federal law for 60 years. Let me repeat that--60 years. Banning the use of permanent replacements by Federal contractors through Executive order is an improper intrusion into the province of the legislative branch of Government. This Executive order violates the congressional mandate of Federal Government neutrality in labor disputes. Current Federal labor laws are designed to strike a very delicate balance between management and labor. The right to replace strikers is just as much a vital part of that balance as is the right to strike and the right to bargain. This balance has evolved over many years of congressional scrutiny, and this intrusion will change the effectiveness of the law without proper legislative action. Mr. President, it is a sad day for our Nation whenever one branch of our constitutional form of Government seeks to encroach upon the province of another. The Kassebaum amendment will prohibit the administration from spending any appropriated funds to implement this Executive order. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support cloture. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, as we debate the Defense supplemental appropriations bill, I want to ensure that my colleagues and the managers of the bill are aware of some of the underlying problems with the way this supplemental was crafted. First let me say the supplemental is necessary, and I intend to support the bill. The bill is designed to replace critical readiness and training funds which the services had to spend in the first half of this fiscal year for humanitarian and other so-called peace operations. If we do not replace those funds, military readiness will continue to decline. Combat readiness has declined too far already. The Nation cannot afford to let it erode further. It angers me that the administration has allowed readiness to suffer at all. Under these circumstances, it would be irresponsible to require the military departments to further curtail training and maintenance, and cause more degradation in combat readiness. While this supplemental is necessary, I was surprised to see that the Appropriations Committee chose to fully offset the costs of these peace operations, which were ill-conceived and not approved by the Congress, from within the fiscal year 1995 Defense budget. In others words, under this bill the Department of Defense must fund those operations totally within its existing budget. I have said over and over that the defense budget has been cut too much, too fast. I have strongly supported an increase to the President's budget request to bring fiscal year 1996 defense funding level with fiscal year 1995, adjusted for inflation. This supplemental, in effect, reduces funds available for defense in fiscal year 1995 by requiring these externally imposed operations to be absorbed within the current defense budget. This is a very complex and difficult issue. Fortunately the Appropriations Committee has offset these extra costs with programs which, for the most part, can be called nondefense items; or programs which the Defense Department could not execute in this fiscal year. By fully offsetting the supplemental appropriations, the deficit is not increased. In fact, title II actually reduces the deficit from domestic accounts. I am a strong supporter of removing nondefense items from the defense budget, and have long been a supporter of a balanced budget and reducing the deficit. However, I am concerned at the precedent we may be setting by finding all the offsets in the current defense budget. I do not support using our military forces as a global police force or social service agency, deploying them all over the world without the expressed approval of the Congress. We have reduced our Armed Forces and defense resources to dangerously low levels. Now it is questionable whether we can defend our vital interests in a conflict with one or more major regional powers. Consequently, I do not want the administration to regard approval of this supplemental appropriations bill as endorsement of their expanded peacekeeping activities abroad, nor of defense funds. In closing, I reiterate my support for this Defense supplemental, but urge my friends on the Appropriations Committee to consider the method used in preparing this bill as a one time event, and not as a model for future supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense. I thank the Chair; I yield the floor. Amendment No. 321 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate affirming the importance of, and the need for, cost-shared partnerships between the Department of Defense and the private sector to develop dual-use technologies) Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator from Texas on what she has had to say about the Alamo. I am very pleased that South Carolina played a big part in that historic event. William Barret Travis, the commander at the Alamo, was born in Edgefield County in South Carolina, the county in which I was born. He was a brave soldier. He fought to the end. Every person there was killed. James Bonham, another man prominent to the Alamo, was also born in Edgefield County, SC. So we are proud that South Carolina has played a big part in the history of Texas. They saw they could not win over the Mexicans, they were overpowered. James Bonham asked for permission to go out in the countryside to search for reinforcements. He had to fight through the Mexican lines to get out. He could find no help. He fought to get back to the Alamo. He came back to the fort and fought to his death. He knew they would die because they did not have enough support. Again, I want to commend the able Senator from Texas for telling us about the history of the Alamo.

Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I previously expressed my support for the confirmation of Mrs. Cox, General Davis, Admiral Montoya, Mr. Kling, Mr. Cornella, and Mrs. Steele to be members of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I want to reiterate that support and add to it my support of General Robles. Mr. President, I have no doubt that our former colleague, Senator Alan Dixon, can complete this process by himself, However, I believe both he and the Senate would rather see a group of individuals make decisions on the future of the Nation's military bases and our local economies. Therefore, I urge the Senate to confirm these nominations and let the 1995 Base Closure Commission proceed with its work.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield back time on our side.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the able Senator from New York.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this has not been a good day for the United States. I cannot imagine any piece of legislation that could have been offered in the Senate which would do this country more good than this balanced budget amendment which was defeated today, defeated by one vote. Mr. President, we cannot keep on as we are. We have not balanced this budget but one time in 32 years--eight times in 64 years. How are we going to change it? We are putting a burden on our children and our grandchildren that is unbearable. It is not fair to this generation or the next generation that we permit this to happen. The best way we can stop this spending--and the Congress is intent on spending--is to adopt a balanced budget amendment. We passed a statute years ago, and before the end of that year--Harry Byrd was the author of it--the Congress had gone beyond and spent more than that statute permitted. The only way under the Sun you are going to stop this spending--the only way, I repeat--is to pass a constitutional amendment to mandate--to mandate, to make--the Congress balance the budget. That is the only way you are going to stop it. We refused to pass that today. We turned it down. I hope the American people will study this question and see what happened and bring pressure on this Congress to do what it ought to do, and that is to pass this amendment when it comes up again. And it will come up again. It will come up again probably this session. It may not pass again this session. It will come up again next session. But I predict it will pass either this session or next session. It has to pass if we are going to stop this spending. It has to pass if we are going to save this country from financial ruin. I hope people rise up and demand that such action be taken. Mr. President, let me pay tribute before I yield the floor to Senator Dole, the majority leader, and Senator Lott, the assistant majority leader, for their leadership throughout this fight. I also wish to commend Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for the fine job he did, and Senator Simon, who joined him as one of the principal authors, and Senator Craig, from Idaho, who did such a herculean job in trying to get this amendment passed, and Senator Heflin from Alabama, who was prominent in pushing this amendment. They all deserve to be commended. I thank all Senators who voted for it, but I especially wish to thank the leaders whose names I just mentioned. I also want to commend the staff of Senator Hatch for their exemplary and dedicated work on this legislation, Sharon Prost, Shawn Bentley, and Larry Block. Additionally, Damon Tobias of Senator Craig's office was tireless in his efforts to assist during consideration of this measure and too I commend Thad Strom, my chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee for his able assistance.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I wish to announce that there will be no further rollcall votes today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and deficits rise because, in large part, the Federal Government has grown. It has grown tremendously out of reason. The first $100 billion budget in the Nation occurred in 1962. This was almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet it took only 9 years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion. Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket: $300 billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1995 was over $1.5 trillion. Federal spending has gripped the Congress as a narcotic. It is time to break the habit and restore order to the fiscal policy of the Nation. It is incumbent upon this body to send the balanced budget amendment to the American people for ratification. I am pleased that we have reached agreement to vote on final passage today. I want to say this: The federal debt is $4.8 trillion. How did it come about? Big government, big spending, not following sound fiscal policy at all. The annual interest on this debt--the annual interest we pay for which we get nothing, it just goes down the drain--$235 billion. That is the second largest item in the budget. The average annual deficit for each year during this decade has been $259 billion. It is unreasonable. How are we going to stop it? I have been here 40 years. We have balanced the budget only one time in 32 years. The budget has been balanced only eight times in the last 64 years. When are we going to stop it? When are we going to stop spending more than we take in? When are we going to stop putting this debt on our children and grandchildren and generations to come. I say to Members that we must take action. Today is the day to do it. Today is the day to pass this amendment and let the American people know we mean business and we are going to protect this country. We have to protect it from this big spending just like we have to protect it in time of war. Either can ruin this Nation. Now, I want to mention this: The leadership in both houses have stated that Social Security will be protected in the implementing legislation once the balanced budget amendment is adopted. I have long supported our senior citizens and believe that the promise of Social Security is not to be broken. The Federal debt is the greatest threat to Social Security. Adoption of the balanced budget amendment and strong language in the implementing legislation will ensure the viability of Social Security. The Senate should pass this amendment. My home State of South Carolina has a balanced budget requirement. We have abided by it for years. We do not run any deficits. Why? Because we have the mandate of a balanced budget by constitutional provision. That is what we are trying to get here. We also have a statute. I say to Members, if we do not pass this amendment today, we will miss a great opportunity. There is no one piece of legislation we can pass this year or any year to come that is more important than this balanced budget amendment. I hope we pass it today. It is for the good of America. It is for the good of our country. We ought to do it without delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will not take much of the Senate's time to express my support for the confirmation of Mrs. Cox, General Davis, Admiral Montoya, Mr. Kling, Mr. Cornella, and Mrs. Steele to be members of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Despite the dismal performance by the White House when it submitted these nominations, the Armed Services Committee resolved all outstanding issues concerning individual nominees. I should add that these issues were, for the most part, related to whether or not an individual should recuse himself or herself from deliberating on a particular base. After considerable discussion and individual interviews, these concerns were alleviated and the committee recommended that the Senate confirm the nominees. We now face a crucial decision. Tomorrow, as required by law, the Secretary of Defense will release his recommended list of bases for closure. Whether or not the Senate confirms the Base Closure Commissioners has no impact on the release of the list. However, it does impact on the deliberative process which will proceed since we have a Commission chairman. The question that every Senator who wants to delay the confirmation process should be asking is: Do we allow the chairman of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Senator Alan Dixon, to solely conduct the evaluations of the Secretary's list, or do we provide him with the assistance of these six Commissioners? I have no doubt that despite the abilities of Alan Dixon, he and the Senate would rather see a group of individuals make decisions on the future of the Nation's military bases and our local economies. Therefore, I urge the Senate to confirm these nominations and let the 1995 Base Closure Commission proceed with its work.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the debate on this historic opportunity to adopt House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. Over the past 3 weeks we have heard many eloquent speakers on the need to pass a balanced budget amendment and bring this Nation's fiscal policy under control. It has been especially encouraging to see our freshman colleagues take to the floor and urge this body to adopt a balanced budget amendment. Many of their campaigns were centered on the premise that the Federal Government has grown too large, spends too much money and must be curtailed to operate within its means. Mr. President, we have been considering this proposal for 26 days. There has been significant debate and compelling arguments on the need for a balanced budget amendment. I would just note that during our debate over the past 26 days, the Federal debt has grown over $21.5 billion. Undoubtedly, it is the desire of every member who supports the balanced budget amendment to see the Federal budget deficit eliminated that we may begin to cut away at the Federal debt which currently stands at $4.8 trillion. Without a balanced budget amendment, there has been little pressure on the Congress to make tough legislative choices on Federal spending and the Federal deficit has continued to grow. With a balanced budget amendment as part of the Constitution, the Congress would be mandated to follow a sound fiscal policy. The Congress would finally understand the reality that there are a finite number of tax dollars available for public spending and various proposals would compete on merit and need, not popularity. The balanced budget amendment would instill an urgent need for legislative accountability as Congress considers various proposals for increased Federal spending. Currently, there is no real check on runaway Federal spending, and there will never be a shortage of legislation creating new Federal programs or efforts to increase spending in existing programs. Without a balanced budget amendment, budget deficits over the long term will continue to rise and the Federal debt will continue to grow. The Congress has not shown the fortitude to address, in a meaningful way, the budget deficit and the Federal debt. There have been times when legislative gestures were made to bring spending within our means but those efforts were short-lived. Statutes to reduce Federal spending have not been enough. They are too easily cast aside and the Congress rolls along on its path of fiscal irresponsibility. I am convinced that without the mandate of a balanced budget amendment, Federal spending will continue to eclipse receipts and the American people will continue to shoulder inordinate tax burdens to sustain an indefensible congressional appetite for spending. In 1950, an average American family with two children sent $1 out of every $50 it earned to the Federal Government. Today, the average American family is sending $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government. Under current budget projections, there is no reason to believe that these statistics will improve. Mr. President, we can trace the debate on a balanced budget amendment back in our history for 200 years. A defining moment may well have been the appointment of Thomas Jefferson as Minister to France. Thomas Jefferson was abroad when the Constitution was written and he did not attend the constitutional convention. If Jefferson had been in attendance, it is quite possible that he would have been successful in having language placed in the Constitution to limit the spending authority of the Federal government. Upon studying the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a change he so fervently believed should become part of the Constitution. He wrote the following and I quote, I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the government the power of borrowing. Further, Jefferson stated and I quote, ``If there is one omission I fear in the document called the Constitution, it is that we did not restrict the power of government to borrow money.'' President Jefferson also stated, ``I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.'' President John Quincy Adams stated, ``Stewards of the pubic money should never suffer without urgent necessity to be transcended the maxim of keeping the expenditures of the year within the limits of its receipts.'' --and incidentally, he was the only President ever born in South Carolina-- Another former president Andrew Jackson stated the following: Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our population will be relieved from a considerable portion of its present burdens and will find * * * additional means for the display of individual enterprise. We should look at the national debt, as just as it is, not as a national blessing but as a heavy burden on the industry of the country to be discharged without unnecessary delay. President Harrison described unnecessary public debt as ``criminal.'' President Woodrow Wilson stated, ``Money being spent without new taxation and appropriation without accompanying taxation is as bad as taxation without representation.'' President Calvin Coolidge stated the following: The Nation must make financial sacrifices accompanied by a stern self denial in public expenditures until we have conquered the disabilities of our public finance * * * we must keep our budget balanced for each year. Mr. President, early American Presidents and public leaders understood the dangers of excessive public debt. For almost 150 years, balanced budgets or budget surpluses were the fiscal norm followed by the Federal Government. The unwritten rule followed by Presidents and legislators until recently in our Nation's history was to achieve balanced budgets except in wartime. But the role and the size of the Federal Government has gown out of control. In the past three decades, the Federal Government has run deficits in every year except one. Further, the Federal Government has run deficits in 56 of the last 64 years. Mr. President, during the 1960's, deficits were averaging around $6 billion per year. The following decade, the 1970's, saw deficits rise and they averaged $36 billion per year. In the last decade, the 1980's, deficits continued to rise and averaged $156 billion per year. So far, in the 1990's, deficits have averaged $259 billion per year. The Federal debt has grown as deficits have continued to grow and the debt now stands at $4.8 trillion. It took this Nation over 200 years to run the first trillion dollar debt yet we have recently been adding another trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 years. I have been deeply concerned during my time in the Senate over the growth of the Federal Government. It has been too easy for the Congress to pass legislation creating new Federal programs and spending more tax dollars whenever there is a call for Federal intervention. Of course, the Federal Government has an appropriate role to protect believe that Washington should respond to every perceived problem with a new Federal approach. This Nation has drifted from its original foundations as a national government of limited authority. I believe the adoption of a balanced budget amendment will do much to return us to a more decentralized Federal Government of limited authority and the mandates of such an amendment will increase legislative accountability. A balanced budget amendment is the single most important addition we can propose to the Constitution to begin reducing the size of the Federal Government. Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and deficits rise because in large part, the Federal Government has grown. The first $100 billion Federal budget in the history of the Nation occurred in 1962. This was almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet, it took only 9 years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion. Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket; $300 billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1995 was over $1.5 trillion. Federal spending has gripped Congress as a narcotic but it is time to break the habit and restore order to the fiscal policy of this Nation. It is incumbent upon this body to send the balanced budget amendment to the American people for ratification. I am pleased that we have reached agreement to vote on final passage on February 28, next Tuesday. The vote on final passage on House Joint Resolution 1 could well be the most important vote we will face as Senators as its adoption is essential for protecting our liberties as a free nation. I hope we do not fail the American people on this historic opportunity and instead present to the States our proposed amendment to mandate balanced budgets. It is time to act to secure the future for all Americans. Mr. President, I just want to say in closing, what other way can we balance the budget? The Congress has not shown the fortitude, it has not shown the willingness and it has not balanced the budget. How can we make them do it? There is no way I know to make the Congress balance its budget except a constitutional amendment. We have tried all other ways. They have failed. The balanced budget amendment put in the Constitution will tell the Congress it cannot spend more than it takes in, and then we will get the budget balanced. Once we balance it, I hope we can keep it balanced. If we have this constitutional amendment, we will have to keep the budget balanced. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida speaks, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak following the remarks of

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Records of January 6 and 23, 1995 and to save the expense of printing again.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Secretary of the Army has announced the retirement of a dedicated public servant, Mr. Milton H. Hamilton, Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, at the end of February. Mr. Hamilton has distinguished himself throughout his long career with the Army, especially during the last 15 years when he served as the Administrative Assistant. The Army and the Nation will miss him. Mr. Hamilton became the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, the Army's senior career civilian position, on March 31, 1980. The position of Administrative Assistant is established by statute and dates back to 1789 when the only other civilian position authorized for the War Office was that of Secretary of War. As the Administrative Assistant, Mr. Hamilton has been responsible to the Secretary for the administration of the Department of the Army; served as a focal point for transitions between administrations; and, authenticated all departmental regulations and related publications. During a vacancy in the Office of the Secretary, he has had charge and custody of all records, books, and papers of the Department. Mr. Hamilton was born June 17, 1925, in Elkins, WV. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1946 with a B.S. in military engineering. He earned an M.B.A. from Syracuse University in 1959 and an M.S. in international affairs from George Washington University in 1965. Mr. Hamilton has completed the residence requirements for a Ph.D. in business administration at American University; is a graduate of the Army War College (1965); the Federal Executive Institute (1978); and, Senior Managers in Government Program, Harvard University (1983). He has been awarded the Army's Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service; Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service; the Meritorious Civilian Service Award; as well as DOD's highest award, the DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Mr. Hamilton has also been twice awarded the Presidential Ranks of Distinguished Executive and Meritorious Executive. Before leaving active military service as a colonel in 1972, Mr. Hamilton served in a wide variety of command and general staff positions, to include brigade commander, comptroller, program/budget manager, researcher in personnel management, service school instructor, and politico-military policy formulator at the national level. He served in combat with the 3d Infantry Division in Korea, and the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam. From 1972 to 1975, Mr. Hamilton was a project manager/principal scientist with General Research Corp. in McLean, VA. In this capacity, he directed research and analyses pertaining to: organizational effectiveness and program evaluation; manpower utilization and development; resource allocations for forces and systems; national security policy; military readiness; and planning, programming, and budgeting. Returning to Government service in December 1975, Mr. Hamilton was the principal adviser in the Department of Defense on political military economic aspects of United States relations with southern and western African countries. In May 1977, he became the Deputy Director for Programming, Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, and served in that capacity until his appointment as Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. As the Army's top civilian programmer, he had a major role in the shaping and resourcing of the Army's Future Years Defense Program which underlies the readiness of today's Army. We honor Mr. Hamilton's selfless service, in peace and war, to the Nation and the U.S. Army. We wish him and his family Godspeed and a healthy and rewarding retirement.