Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the distinguished Senator from Colorado has modified the amendment to apply to only administrative costs, of which there are about $2 million, and that there would be an assessment charged against the producers to carry out the program. I am sure that the peanut program is controversial and that many programs are controversial. Agriculture programs are controversial, and under the Department of Agriculture every agricultural program is carried out and administered by the Department of Agriculture. Are we going to say that the wheat program, therefore, which is carried out and administered by the Department of Agriculture, if we were to follow the same concept, that on the wheat program there ought to be an assessment against the wheat producers relative to the administration of the wheat program? If we stop and think about other programs, does this mean that if you carry this philosophy out, the Social Security recipients, therefore, should pay an assessment to the Government for carrying out the Social Security program? Or the Medicare Program? Does this mean that the recipients in this program ought to be assessed the costs to carry out and administer the program? You could go on with every conceivable program that the Government has that therefore this philosophy would be relative to. Or the same concept could be applied in regard to Senators. Should Senators, therefore, in order to have an accounting system for receipt of their salaries be assessed fees for the Government to carry out that program or to administer that program? I do not agree with this overall philosophy, and I just point out questions pertaining to it. I will have a good deal more to say about this later on, but I do want to point out right now that the concept of charging the producers of a program an assessment to administer the program is rather unusual and, if we start it, it ought to be applied across the board to every conceivable program--the orange juice program, the corn program, every program, wherever you are going to do it. And then there are also other people in the chain that are recipients of a program such as, in the peanut program, the shellers, and then there are the market people, the manufacturers that use it--all of these people who are in effect beneficiaries of a program that ought to be considered rather than just the farmer. We have had a situation where we are looking at farmers today in some of the sections of the country who have had terrible disasters, and I just do not think this is the proper time to be doing something like this. Overall, the peanut program has cost the taxpayers a relatively small amount of money over the period of time it has been in existence-- sometimes as prices go up and prices go down because of market conditions or, on the other hand, because of weather conditions like drought and other things, but in the last 10 years, the peanut program has averaged out costing the Government an average of $13 million a year. And I do not think any other farm program has been operated as economically and at as little cost to the Government over a like period of time in history. It will vary. It has gone up sometimes, and then there have been years in which actually the peanut program has made the Government money. So I think when we look at this matter of saving $2 million, it certainly calls for a concept, and if we are going to look at it in some equitable and fair way across the board, we ought to consider all other programs. But the major thing is that here we are, as the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, has mentioned in a situation where this week we go to [[Page S 13702]] markup relative to a farm bill, and various and sundry approaches may be offered and considered there. I think, therefore, it is premature at this time to be considering it. Certainly, the Agriculture Committee ought to be given an opportunity to look at this before we move forward in this regard. I yield at this point and will have something else to say later.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am a supporter of the wheat program. I did not necessarily mean to be picking Colorado. I have always supported the wheat program. I think it is a good program. But there are some distinctions between the wheat program and the peanut program relative to the cost of Government, as there are with a number of commodities. Basically, the peanut program has a loan rate. That loan rate allows for farmers to--in bad times when the price is low or when there are weather conditions and such--put their product that they have produced into a loan. And then the CCC can take it out of the loan and set it. They have to pay interest on it when they do, or else the Government can, of course, have a nonrecourse loan and can sell it on the world market. But the wheat program and most commodities have a greater cost rather than just the loan. That is the target price or deficiency payment. And there is no deficiency payment, there is no target price in peanuts at all. I think sometimes we have misunderstood various farm programs and other things also. But the peanut program does not have the deficiency payments at a great number. I am a supporter of the farm programs that allow for the target prices and allow for the deficiency payment. But I do make that distinction, the distinction being raised about that at this time. So we will be discussing it further. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I firmly support the continuation of a strong, independent U.S. Information Agency. The USIA serves a vital purpose in telling America's story to the rest of the world. It serves the critical function of advancing public diplomacy, broadcasting through its radios and Worldnet, enabling educational and cultural exchange programs, distributing information, and promoting a sense of shared cultural values. These programs not only serve our national security interests. They also provide direct economic benefits and foster a climate where American businesses can develop overseas markets, producing jobs, and providing wages for American workers. We must remember the important distinctions between the official type of diplomacy conducted by our State Department and what is known as public diplomacy. The State Department conducts a quiet, often secret, dialog between countries with an emphasis placed on accommodation, negotiation, and compromise. These are all important, since they nurture relationships between countries to achieve broader goals. Public diplomacy such as that conducted by USIA seeks to foster direct economic relationships, engages in democratic institution-building, and encourages mutual understanding and a shared sense of values. A classic illustration of the parallel nature of the two types of diplomacy occurred during the period when martial law was declared in Poland. At a time when private organizations, including the AFL-CIO, were engaged in a massive effort to assist the Polish trade union Solidarnosc, the Reagan administration was taking steps to ease economic sanctions that had been imposed on the Jaruzelski government. Because of the arms-length distance between the government and the private sector, both could pursue their goals. This was true also in Russia, South Africa, the Philippines, and Chile. If this bill passes without the Lieberman amendment, such distance will disappear, and this type of dual diplomacy will prove impossible. If USIA is folded into the State Department, its public diplomacy functions will be severely diminished, particularly in areas where democracy needs them the most in order to survive. Another major reason for my support of a continued independent USIA stems from its programs of exchanges for emerging foreign and American political leaders. Over the years, these programs have brought young local and Federal officials to America for a first-hand look at our Government and how it works. More than 30 current heads of state had their first exposure to the people and institutions of the United States through the USIA Exchange Program. Hundreds of cabinet ministers, mayors, governors, and Members of Parliament around the world formed their first opinions of America by coming here and meeting people where they work and live. Hundreds of other leading political figures both here and abroad have gained valuable international experience through USIA's support for programs like that of the American Council of Young Political Leaders. Twenty-five Members of Congress and countless State and local officials around the Nation are alumni of these programs. All will testify to the positive impact of these programs. The USIA's rule of law program is an example of its efforts in assisting developing democracies worldwide. This particular program has been actively engaged in the area of judicial reform in Romania, perhaps once the most oppressive of the former Communist regimes. Through the posting of American judges at the Ministry of Justice for long-term projects, programs to strengthen the Magistrates' Training Institute, and ongoing support for the newly founded Magistrates' Training Association, USIA has established itself as a leader in assisting Romania in its attempts to establish an independent judiciary. American judges and academics have traveled to Romania under the auspices of USIA's Fulbright Program and have been posted to law schools throughout the country to teach and develop curricula and to work with the judiciary on numerous issues of importance. Romanian judges have also visited the United States under the Agency's International Visitor Program for 30-day observation and consultation trips to witness first hand the American judiciary and to gather information to assist in their judicial reform efforts. [[Page S 13478]] The USIA also supports such projects as the American People Ambassador Program, a program of people to people international. This program arranges face-to-face professional, scientific, technical, and community exchanges between Americans and their counterparts around the world. Each one explores a different topic, but all share the personal exchange of information, ideas, goals, and experiences with leading public and provide sector citizens of foreign countries. One such program in my State is the torch of Birmingham Award Program, which seeks to honor Russian companies and those in the Newly Independent States who are succeeding despite difficult economic conditions. In September, over 400 Russian business and government leaders will be coming to Birmingham to participate in this event. They will represent every imaginable segment of the Russian economy, and will network with leading Alabama business, political, and community leaders. The USIA and its resources are essential to organizations like the American People Ambassador Program which operate exchanges around the world. All of us are keenly aware of the budgetary constraints we face. But we must not be short sighted by eliminating investments in our Nation's future and security. Who can say whether or not educational and cultural exchange programs will be maintained if they are placed in a department with a significantly different mission, set of priorities, and official purpose? The world remains just as dangerous as it has ever been. new threats have replaced some of those which ended with the cold war. But they are just as real and threatening to international peace and stability. The world looks to us for leadership--leadership with a strong voice. I applaud Senator Lieberman's efforts to ensure that America continues to have that strong voice through an independent USIA, and look forward to working with him on this issue when the State Department reauthorization bill is again brought before the Senate.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Heflin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1227 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Agriculture Act of 1995. This legislation will extend and revise agricultural loan and related programs for cotton, peanuts, and oilseeds. Some farm programs, as currently structured, have served rural America well, and in the case of southern crops, farm programs have served the rural South extremely well. Therefore, it is my intention to introduce legislation that fine tunes these programs, rather than radically restructuring them, as some as proposing. In 1994, the cotton industry experienced a record year. Cotton production in the United States totaled a record 19.7 million bales. Production in the Southeast totaled 3.7 million bales, an increase of 89 percent over the previous year. U.S. exports and domestic mill consumption together totaled in excess of 21 million bales in 1994, the largest total offtake on record. During calendar 1994, U.S. cotton textile exports increase 15 percent above 1993 to surpass 1 billion pounds, a new record. Much of this success is due to the structure of the cotton program. Through the use of the marketing loan, that I put in, in the 1985 farm bill, the cotton industry has been able to take advantage of favorable world prices resulting from poor planting decisions and harvest conditions experienced by some of our foreign competitors. The marketing loan has been an enormously valuable tool for this industry and is responsible for drastically reducing the cost of the cotton program by allowing producers to effectively market their crop. [[Page S 12963]] The cotton program stands as a shining example of a farm program that works as it should. For instance, there will be no idled acres, or set- asides, for this year's crop, further reducing the cost of the program. Despite the perception that commodity programs pay farmer not to plant a portion of their crops, cotton producers only get paid for the cotton that they produce. Due to the success in the manner in which the industry is operating, I see no reason to change a policy just for the sake of change. Therefore, this legislation proposes to extend the cotton program as written. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize that while cotton has just had a record year and expectations are high for 1995, cotton producers in Alabama, and throughout the Southeast, are having to deal with a severe drought and have been plagued by an extraordinary outbreak of insect and worm infestations. Roughly two-thirds of Alabama's cotton crop has had some degree of significant yield damage, and nearly one quarter of the State's cotton crop will not be harvested this year. As work progresses on the 1995 farm bill, I will be mindful of this situation as our deliberations continue. Mr. President, there is a crop that is unique to a handful of States in the South that has represented more than just an economic endeavor, rather it has been responsible for a way of life and the preservation of a rural culture. The peanut program which is essential to Alabama, has lately been the target of those who would have us believe that ending this program or radically altering its structure would be in the best interest of all American consumers. While it is acknowledged that the American farmer receives a higher amount for his peanuts, it should also be pointed out that the world price against which they are measured represents an entirely different grade and quality of peanuts. Peanuts of foreign origin are not subject to similar requirements for minimum wage, environmental protection, restricted chemical use, rigorous post harvest treatment, or inspection. Detractors tell us that by radically changing the peanut program that consumers will realize savings at the check-out stand as a result. The GAO in 1993 interviewed both small and large manufacturers of peanuts products and were told that they ``may not pass the savings directly on to the final consumer of peanut products, but they could develop some new product lines''. What this peanut product manufacturer, anti-peanut movement sounds like to me is an effort to increase the manufacturer's bottom line, at the expense of peanut producers with absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that any savings realized by manufacturers will be passed along to consumers. Auburn University recently released a study that indicates that the peanut industry in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida has an economic impact in the tri-State area exceeding $1.3 billion, and employment associated with economic activity related to the peanut industry exceeds 16,000 jobs in the three States. This record of success has been accomplished through one of the USDA's most cost effective commodity programs. The peanut program has a 10-year average cost of about $13 million annually. The Auburn study goes further to indicate, using the very same economic impact model used by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, that changes in the order of those being proposed by the antipeanut forces would cost 4,510 jobs in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and have a negative economic impact exceeding $320 million. However, in an effort to further limit the already minimal cost exposure of the program, this legislation will freeze the support price paid to producers at the 1995 crop level. Additionally, the Southern Agricultural Act of 1995 will eliminate other production control provisions, thereby even further reducing the cost of the program by limiting the amount of peanuts that a producer may carry over to the following year's crop. According to the USDA, this peanut proposal will save an estimated $173 million over 7 years from the cost of the program. Furthermore, other peanut State Senators and I are working on ways to eliminate all cost to the Federal Government from the peanut program to achieve a no- net-cost program. The peanut program is vital to Alabama and I strongly support its continuation. Soybeans are another crop of great importance to Alabama. However, due to the lack of profitability, acres planted to soybeans in Alabama have declined by 90 percent over the last 10 to 15 years. Soybeans and other oilseeds do not receive income support under the farm program. Lacking income protection, soybean producers in Alabama and other States are vulnerable to sharp increases in production and reductions in prices. This vulnerability has resulted in a lost of over 10 million acres of soybean production in the United States since 1981, with most of this loss occurring in Southern States. Soybean production peaked in Alabama in 1979 with 2.2 million acres planted. Data on the 1995 crop indicates only 230,000 acres are planted to soybeans in Alabama. In an effort to correct his situation, this legislation addresses this issue by increasing marketing loan rates for soybeans to $5.25 per bushel from the current level of $4.92 per bushel. While not high enough to incur outlays except during years when soybean prices fall well below historical levels, this increased loan rate will provide a minimal amount of support for our soybean producers, encouraging greater planting of soybeans in years when prices warrant it. Every year the farming community takes risks that most Americans take for granted each time they go to the grocery store and purchase a gallon of milk or loaf of bread or jar of peanut butter. Each time they walk down the grocery aisles, there is that same consistency in quality and price that consumers now rarely, if ever, stop to appreciate. However, it is the farmer who each spring puts his family on the line by planting his crops. Every farming family is no more than a natural disaster away from losing his farm and home. Regardless, each year he again takes that risk that provides us all with the highest quality, most abundant, and most affordable food and fiber in world. For that, I strongly believe that we should, at the very least, provide some measure of a safety net for the unavoidable natural disasters and the heavily subsidized competition that our farmers must face from our foreign trading partners. I realize that we are faced with budget realities that dictate that we must make some difficult and painful choices. We must keep in mind, though, that Commodity Credit Corporation outlays for farm programs have declined from a high of $26 billion in fiscal year 1986 to less than $9 billion in fiscal year 1995, a 65-percent reduction. According to the Congressional Budget Office, farm program outlays are projected to remain below this level for fiscal year 1996-2002, even if no changes are made in current law for existing farm programs. If all other sectors of the Federal Government had experienced the same proportion of cuts as agriculture has, the Federal budget would now be balanced. However, the upcoming reconciliation bill appears to be the place for those decisions to be debated. The Southern Agricultural Act of 1995 is a statement of support for the continuation and improvement of the cotton, peanut, and soybean farm programs, programs that have worked well and do not warrant drastic overhaul. This bill is designed to allow these farm programs continue to build upon their many successes which include benefits to taxpayers, consumers, and producers alike.

Mr. HEFLIN

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

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

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, due to the fact that no other Senator desires to speak, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed in morning business up to 5 minutes.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, when our colleague from Rhode Island announced his retirement, I could not help but think of what a gentleman he is and what an example he has set for this body over the course of his 35-year career in the Senate. He is the walking embodiment of civility, a reminder of the days when politics and public service were indeed kinder and gentler. First elected in 1960, Claiborne Pell is not only Rhode Island's senior public servant, but also one of the Nation's senior statesmen. Only Senators Thurmond and Byrd have served here longer. He is one of the best arguments around today against term limits on Members of Congress. Senator Pell's father, Herbert Claiborne Pell, Jr., served as a Congressman from New York from 1919 to 1921 and was a close friend of Franklin Roosevelt and minister to Portugal and Hungary. He had five other relatives who served in Congress as well. The younger Pell himself served as a foreign service officer for several years, then settled in Newport, along with the Vanderbilts and Auchinclosses. Most of us know him as the quiet, deliberate, thoughtful chairman, and now ranking member, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was present at the birth of the United Nations in San [[Page S 12754]] Francisco 50 years ago, and today carries a copy of the U.N. Charter in his coat pocket. This ``eccentricity,'' as one news account called it, is a testament to the importance Senator Pell has always placed on an international organization aimed at promoting world peace and cooperation. Senator Pell's greatest legacy probably will lie in the field of education. He is the second-ranking Democrat on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and for years chaired the Subcommittee on Education, the Arts, and Humanities. He made a particular mark in setting up a grant program for needy college and university students. These Pell grants, as they are officially called, have become familiar to a generation of students. He has also been a leader in promoting ocean research. A statement Senator Pell made in his retirement announcement summarizes his philosophy and approach to public service. He said, I consider . . . the United States Senate a marvelous institution. . . . And I continue to believe that government, and the federal government in particular, can, should, and does make a positive impact on the lives of most Americans. There is no doubt that Claiborne Pell has contributed significantly and tangibly to that positive impact over the last 3\1/2\ decades. In his announcement, Senator Pell also thanked the people of Rhode Island for having tolerated his eccentricities. If those eccentricities include a quiet, unassuming manner characterized by thoughtful reflection, meditation, honesty, and courtliness, then we should all aspire to be eccentric in the ways that our dear friend from Rhode Island is eccentric. He is eccentric in the best sense of the term. I congratulate Senator Pell, look forward to serving with him for the remainder of this Congress, and wish him all the best for the future.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, like each and every Member of this body, I was surprised--shocked is not too strong a word--when our colleague from New Jersey announced that he would not be running for a fourth term in the Senate. I could not help but feeling that with the loss of Senator Bradley, the Senate would be losing one of its most intellectual, thoughtful, and hard-working Members, perhaps one of its most unique ever. Bill Bradley is indisputably capable, an outstanding student of and original thinker on major economic and foreign policy issues, as well as a reflection of mainstream public opinion in this country. He is careful and deliberate in his judgments, and often provides a fresh and enlightening perspective on the many complex issues that come before the Senate. Our Nation's tax structure has been one of the focuses of Senator Bradley's distinguished career in public service. His 1982 fair tax proposal led directly to the landmark 1986 tax reform bill. The plan was to cut tax rates sharply and eliminate most preferences and tax shelters. He took a broad concept and, in characteristic fashion, filled in the details with exacting care. This was a major piece of legislation whose passage was remarkable, especially since Senator Bradley had relatively little seniority and was, at the time, serving in the minority. But as President Reagan, the Treasury Department, the Ways and Means chairman in the House, the Finance chairman in the Senate, and other key leaders embraced comprehensive tax reform, Senator Bradley was there every step of the way. He quietly encouraged others, avoiding the spotlight while offering advice and lobbying Members. He even played basketball with some Members. In spite of his unobtrusive manner and behind-the-scenes style, he emerged as the indispensable man in getting the bill through Congress. Senator Bradley's has been one our most eloquent voices on the issue of race relations in this country. He has long called for a national dialog on the issue, free of the ideological extremes that tend to make thoughtful and frank discussion of race relations rare, if not impossible. His well-thought-out and reasoned pronouncements have often had a cooling effect, and have raised the level of the arguments above the harsh rhetoric often associated with the issue. This is true on other issues as well, especially during foreign policy crises. I look forward to working with Senator Bradley during the time we have left together in the Senate, and wish him all the best for whatever his future might hold after he leaves. I am confident that he will, for many years to come, continue to influence the direction of our country and will continue to provide valuable leadership on the important issues that confront us. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has finally embarked on an earnest and vigorous debate on reforming welfare. Except for the balanced budget amendment, this is probably the most important legislation we will tackle in this Congress. There is no doubt that our current system is failing welfare recipients and taxpayers alike. I believe that all Senators recognize the shortcomings that exist in welfare and sincerely want to rectify them. Although there are some tough issues yet to be resolved, let us not shirk the responsibility we have to all citizens of this country to work together in passing meaningful welfare reform. We have before us various proposals to revise the Federal programs that provide assistance to the poor in our Nation. After reviewing the different recommendations, I have concluded that the Work First legislation authored by Senators Daschle, Breaux, and Mikulski contains the best alternatives to the current problems in our welfare system. First and foremost, the Work First plan mandates work for welfare recipients and an end to government dependency. The AFDC Program would be abolished and replaced by a time-limited benefit, conditional upon a recipient's signing and complying with a parent empowerment contract. Welfare offices would be transformed into employment offices and ensure that welfare parents become productive members of the work force as soon as possible. Persons receiving temporary employment assistance would be required to look for work from day one and would be penalized for turning down any legitimate job offer. States would confirm that an increasing percentage of their welfare populations are entering the work force. Unlike the Republican leadership bill, however, States would have access to the necessary resources to fulfill work participation rates. Child care assistance would be available to help welfare parents successfully make the transition to employment. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the lack of child care would make it impossible for 44 States to comply with the majority leader's bill. I do not wish to place such an unfunded mandate on the States. The Work First plan recognizes that child care is a must for States to meet its tough work participation rates. Moreover, only with sufficient child care can single welfare parents retain jobs and avoid a return to welfare dependency. The Work First bill provides greater incentives than welfare. It transforms the entire welfare bureaucracy, making it work-oriented. States are given the flexibility to administer the Work First employment block grant themselves or contract with private companies to move temporary employment assistance recipients into full-time, private-sector jobs. Senator Daschle's bill is cost-effective. It would achieve a savings of $21 billion over 7 years, all of which would go directly toward deficit reduction. And while the Work First proposal imposes tough time limits for welfare assistance, it contains important protections for children, the innocent victims of our current defective system. There is an urgent need to improve the welfare system in the United States. I hope that the Senate will take advantage of this historic opportunity to enact legislation to overhaul our flawed programs and empower welfare recipients to break cycles of dependency and become successful and productive citizens. I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide funds for test equipment for the U.S. Army. The Army plans to field a number of modernized combat vehicles in the years ahead including the M1A2, the upgraded Bradley, the new breacher, and the new light tank. Unfortunately, the Army budget has been reduced to the point where the Army is unable to [[Page S 12538]] fund the development of the test equipment required to support these new vehicles. However, it makes no sense to field new vehicles without simultaneously fielding the required support equipment. The Army's acquisition decision memorandum dated March 30, 1995, directs the continued use of DSESTS for the ASM fleet. Furthermore, there is a standing Army requirement for new test program sets to support these vehicles. I therefore ask the support of my colleagues in adding $15 million to the ASM budget for the acquisition of DSESTS test program sets needed to support our modern combat systems. Let me say now that I am not pleased by the source of the funds used to pay for this amendment. I stand firmly against raiding the readiness accounts to fund procurement programs. In fact, I would not offer this amendment if it were not for the fact that not purchasing the equipment will cost the readiness accounts even more. If we do not buy this equipment, the combat units will be forced to send broken equipment back to the depot rather than repairing it in the field. This will add millions in additional maintenance costs each year. Purchasing this equipment will save much needed readiness dollars. That being said, I hope that in conference the committee will be able to provide an alternative source of funding for this important test equipment.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute today to an outstanding leader in the musical field--Dr. John M. Long. Dr. Long, director of bands at Troy State University in Troy Alabama for 30 years, is one of the most distinguished and influential figures in the history of this university. The school will be honoring him on Saturday, October 28, at its homecoming football game against the University of Alabama at Birmingham with a celebration entitled ``All That Jazz: a Salute to Dr. John M. Long.'' In reflecting upon just a few of the highlights of his illustrious career, one can easily see why he is so appreciated by those who know him best and why he is so deserving of this special honor. Dr. John Long is a nationally known guest conductor, clinician, and adjudicator who has served throughout North America and Europe. In 1969, he was named by School Musician magazine as one of the top ten outstanding band directors in the United States and Canada. He is past state chairman of the Alabama School Band Directors Association and in 1977, became the first active bandmaster elected to the Alabama Bandmasters' Hall of Fame. In 1972, he was presented the Citation of Excellence by the National Band Association. He is a past president of the prestigious American Bandmasters Association. Dr. Long's service to Troy State University has extended far beyond its music program. He is dean of the School of Fine Arts and for 20 years was dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In addition to currently serving as the director of bands, he is a distinguished professor of music. John Long was born in Guntersville, Alabama on December 28, 1925. He received his bachelor's degree from Jacksonville State University in Jacksonville, Alabama and his master's from the University of Alabama. Jacksonville State awarded him an honorary doctor of laws degree. Today, over 200 former students of Dr. Long's are active high school band directors or college music educators throughout the nation. One of his former students, Colonel John R. Bourgeois, is currently the director of the well-known United States Marine Corps Band based here in Washington. I am pleased to commend and congratulate Dr. John Long on his many years of service to his community, state, and nation. William Shakespeare wrote in ``The Merchant of Venice'': The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils; The motions of his spirit are dull as night, And his affections dark as Erebus: I join his many friends in saying ``thanks'' to Dr. Long for all the sweet sounds with which he has filled our lives and brightened our spirits.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Senate and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for the unanimous support given toward the passage of S. 369, a bill which will rename the Federal Courthouse in Decatur, AL, in honor of Senior Judge Seybourn Harris Lynne. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Richard Shelby honors a distinguished Alabama jurist. Judge Lynne has contributed 45 years of dedicated service to the Federal bench, serving on the United States District Court for the northern District of Alabama. Judge Lynne is a native for Decatur, AL, where he graduated from Decatur High School in 1923. He attended the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, the present-day Auburn University, and he graduated from this outstanding university with highest distinction. Judge Lynne then went on to earn his law degree from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1930. While he was in law school, he served as track coach and assistant football coach at the university. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Lynne practiced law in a partnership formed with his father, Mr. Seybourn Arthur Lynne. In 1934, Judge Lynne was elected Judge of the Morgan County Court. He remained in that position until January 1941, when he took over the elected duties of judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Alabama. On June 16, 1937, he married Katherine Donaldson Brandau of Knoxville, TN. In December of 1942, he resigned from the bench to voluntarily enter the military. After earning the rank of lieutenant colonel, he was relieved of active duty in November of 1945 and awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in operations against the enemy. When an opening occurred on the Federal bench, Alabama Senators Lister Hill and John Bankhead were called upon to provide an appropriate individual to be considered by the White House for this judgeship. After discussions and a reveiw of Judge Lynne's background, the decision was made to put forward his name. However, one important factor should be noted, namely that as he was being considered for a Federal judgeship, Judge Lynne was still serving his country in the South Pacific. In these days of self-serving rhetoric, it is refreshing to know that the outstanding reputation and attributes of Judge Lynne were already being recognized by his peers. In January 1946, President Harry S. Truman appointed Judge Lynne to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In 1953, he became the Chief Judge, and in 1973 he became Senior Judge. As Chief Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Lynne was known as an outstanding leader. His knowledge and management skills ensured a solid, working relationship between the Federal bench and the bar. The Northern District was not burdened with a stale and over-ripe docket and the court's caseload was kept timely and up-to-date thanks to the leadership of Judge Lynne. In addition to this leadership responsibilities, Judge Lynne worked hard and carried a full caseload. In fact, even in senior status, he continues to work long hours and keeps a complete docket of cases. Over the years, Judge Lynne has been recognized as an outstanding mediator who often was able to reconcile competing interests in order to forge a thoughtful compromise. A number of businesses and individuals in Alabama are growing and thriving today due to Judge Lynne's abilities as an arbiter who was able to settle complex and difficult disputes. In addition to his life on the bench, Judge Lynne has been very active in church, civic, school and professional activities. He has served his church, Southside Baptist Church--Birmingham, AL, As a Deacon, A men's bible class teacher, and a trustee. He has also served both the Crippled Children's Clinic of Birmingham and the eye Foundation Hospital of Birmingham as trustee. In 1967, he Served as the president of the University of Alabama law school Alumni Association. Therefore, I believe that the naming of this Federal Courthouse is a fitting tribute to Judge Seybourne Harris Lynne for his tireless work on behalf of the State and Federal bench.

Mr HEFLIN

Mr HEFLIN. Mr. President, former Alabama State Representative Billy J. Williams passed away in Bridgeport, AL, on July 20. He served as a representative in the State legislature from 1967 to 1974. He was also a former Jackson County Commissioner, chairman of the Jackson Economic Development Authority, chairman of the Bridgeport Utilities Board, a member of the Democratic Executive Committee, and a member of the board of directors of Colonial Bank. He was a member of the Rocky Springs Church of Christ, Bridgeport Lodge F and AM, the Scottish Rite, and Alhambra Shrine Temple. Billy Williams was an outstanding public servant who made many contributions to his community and State over the years. He will be sorely missed by those fortunate enough to have known him. I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife Maurin and their entire family in the wake of this loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of an amendment offered by my friend and colleague Senator Grassley to restore funding for the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and Courts, which is chaired by Senator Grassley, and upon which I serve as ranking member has just concluded a hearing on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, relative to the Conference's reauthorization. At that hearing a panel of distinguished witnesses testified on behalf of the continued authorization for this small, but vital independent agency whose purpose is to promote the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness by which Federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, and perform related government functions. The witnesses who testified before our subcommittee were the Hon. Thomasina Rogers, chairwoman of the Conference, the Hon. Loren Smith, chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims and a former chairman of the Conference, Thomas Susman, a prominent Washington lawyer and former staff member of the Judiciary Committee, and James Miller III, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. That is quite a cross-section of individuals and reflect the broadbased, non-ideological support that the Conference enjoys by the legal and academic community across the nation. We are living in a time of retrenchment, when the Federal Government is cutting back and trying to do more with less. The question we must ask ourselves as policy makers is ``does eliminating the Conference make good common sense''? I believe the answer is ``no'' and will elaborate today on why it is good policy to continue the valuable work this agency performs on behalf of the American taxpayer. Former OMB Director Jim Miller put it succinctly at the hearing when he asked: ``Does the Conference produce value for money''? That is ``putting the hay down where the goats can eat it,'' as we say back in Alabama. First let me share some background with my colleagues who may not be familiar with the work that the Conference does. As I have mentioned, the Conference seeks to improve the fairness, adequacy, and efficiency of the regulatory process with a unique combination of public and private cooperation between government officials and private citizens who volunteer their time and expertise. The Conference has leveraged its rather modest $1.8 million appropriation with hundreds of thousands of dollars of estimated donated time from private citizens to conduct the necessary work to advise the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. The Conference was established by law in 1964 to make recommendations on needed improvements to the regulatory process and to serve as sort of a clearinghouse for all of the Federal agencies in this regard. We in Congress have given the agency additional statutory duties over the years under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, and the recently enacted Congressional Accountability Act, and the proposed Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act. Let me give you a concrete example. Under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Conference has assisted in carrying out the act's goals of cutting down on unnecessary Government litigation when cheaper and quicker alternatives could be used to the benefit of the Government and the taxpayer. The Conference instituted a computerized roster that now contains the names of hundreds of neutral mediators who are available to assist agencies in resolving their problems. The Conference has also sponsored an initiative which allows agencies to use each other's employees as an alternate source of low cost, high quality mediators. And importantly, the Conference organized a series of interagency working groups bringing together people from dozens of agencies to work cooperatively on projects no one agency would likely undertake on its own. This is the point I am trying to make--the Conference is a clearinghouse for all of our Federal agencies with regard to improving the administrative process of the Federal Government. Let us look at another concrete example of how the Conference works on behalf of the taxpayer to say him time and money. The Conference recently cosponsored with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy a program in which agencies agreed to work toward a partnership with private sector companies to reduce the number of contract claims filed under the Contract Disputes Act. This was achieved by using alternative dispute resolution techniques, and 24 agencies signed a pledge committing them to enhanced use of ADR techniques. Other savings to the taxpayer were presented at the subcommittee hearing. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, relying on a Conference recommendation, began a pilot mediation program that saved more than $9 million in legal fees in the first 18 months. The U.S. Information Agency used ADR techniques to settle its largest contract claim--$1 million in interest charges alone were saved. A pilot project by the Department of Labor, which worked closely with the Conference, reduced the cost of litigation in enforcement cases resolved by mediation by up to 17 percent and expedited the resolution of those disputes by 6 months. Finally, the Army Corps of Engineers reports that its use of ADR techniques has reduced its contract claims from more than 1,000 in 1988 to slightly more than 300 in 1992. I have perhaps gone on too long for my colleagues in outlining some of the concrete results, but just these alone answer former OMB director Jim Miller's question: ``Does the Conference give value for money''? The short answer is ``yes'' it does. In closing I would like to enter into the Congressional Record a copy of a letter written to the Hon. Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government and to the Hon. Robert Kerrey, ranking member of that subcommittee, which supports continued funding for the Conference. The letter is signed by numerous private sector members of the Conference including private practitioners, public interest groups, law professors, and a State Supreme court justice. Let me read from it a brief excerpt. The Administrative Conference may be one of the most economically efficient uses of taxpayer dollars in the government. Its present budget is $1.8 million. Its work in ADR alone has been the catalyst for tens of millions of dollars of savings by government agencies and the private sector. It should be allowed to continue this important cost- saving work. Mr. President, that succinctly states why I am cosponsoring this amendment to restore the modest funding to this small, but vital nonpartisan independent agency. It does deliver value for money. It should continue its service to the American people.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would prevent the use of Minuteman missile boosters as part of an NMD architecture. The reason for this amendment is the clear fact that using these boosters in this fashion would be a clear violation of the START I Treaty. The START I Treaty is the true centerpiece of modern arms control. I am confident that no member of this body supports abandoning this treaty, so I hope this amendment will enjoy the full support of the Senate.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, creating a Ballistic Missile Defense Technology Center, is to improve the efficiency of the BMD technology program, in the face of a shrinking technology budget. With the increased emphasis on acquisition of theater missile defense systems, clearly justified by the imminent and expanding theater missile threat, the BMD technology budget has been squeezed to the point that built-in technical obsolescence of emerging BMD systems is a serious possibility. In effect, we are eating our seed corn. This amendment recognizes that because the BMD technology budget is dangerously close to an inadequate level, it is critically important that the dollars that are available are spent wisely. We must be vigilant to avoid duplication of effort and waste of funds on technologies of questionable priority. With all three services, and other agencies, spending BMD technology dollars on related areas of technology, the opportunities for duplication are clearly evident. Further screening and coordination of candidate technology tasks is urgently needed to assure that scarce technology funds are properly allocated. The U.S. Army Space and Strategic Command, an organization that has been at the forefront of BMD research and development for 40 years, is the ideal center for carrying out the necessary screening and coordination of BMD technology. Acting as executive agent to the BMD office, this organization can bring an unparalleled record of technical experience and performance excellence to this challenging coordination function. In the current BMD technology program, this organization is immersed in all of the critical BMD technologies and it has a core of engineers and scientists that can immediately assume a coordination role. It constitutes a ``smart buyer'' of BMD technology, proven over time, and it can contribute immensely to a more efficient utilization of the technology budget.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment which would severely reduce the funding needed to develop missile defenses. In light of our experiences in the Persian Gulf war, and the advanced weapon development programs of hostile countries such as Korea, this amendment should be soundly rejected by the Senate. The dangers of leaving our own country unprotected cannot be ignored. Perhaps some Senators have forgotten that we had a demonstration of the dangers of a ballistic missile attack just a few years ago. The picture of an unprotected Israel being hit by Scud missiles chilled the hearts of all Americans, but that incident would pale in comparison to the consequences of a nuclear missile strike. It was reported in the news a year ago that the North Koreans vowed to launch missiles at Tokyo should armed conflict occur with South Korea. While their capability to launch such an attack is questionable, the threat cannot be ignored. It is my understanding that in reaction to this, Japan has approached the Department of Defense to discuss the purchase of our THAAD missile system. Unfortunately, THAAD will not be ready for deployment until the turn of the century. I am sure that if Japan could have anticipated the threat they now face, they would have invested in some type of missile defense system much sooner. As it is, Japan will be vulnerable to North Korean blackmail for years to come. They can only hope that North Korea never carries out its threat. Mr. President, we cannot allow the United States to be put in such a vulnerable position. I firmly believe, however, that the present crisis with North Korea clearly demonstrates that need to continue the development of a national missile defense system. The cost of being unprepared to defend ourselves is too great to be ignored. I encourage my colleagues to join me in defeating this unwise amendment.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of providing a system to protect the citizens of the United States from ballistic missile attack. There are two parts to the Levin amendment. The first provision strikes the goal of the Missile Defense Act of 1995--a multiple site deployment designed to protect the United States. The second provision strikes the demarcation provision for theater defenses. My concern is with the first provision of this amendment. I support deployment. I fully believe the goal of the Missile Defense Act must be to deploy defenses to protect the United States as soon as possible. As I stated many times before, I strongly believe we should act within the ABM Treaty and deploy a single site defense immediately. I also believe it is important that the administration begin serious treaty negotiations to allow the deployment of additional ABM sites. This means that the long-range goal of our negotiations with the Russians must be a multiple site, ground-based deployment. A statement of a national policy to deploy a multiple site defense system to protect the United States is far from violating the ABM Treaty. Many of my colleagues have called this language different things, such as a statement to plan to breach or an anticipatory breach of the ABM Treaty. By anticipatory breach I assume they mean that something like ``conspiracy to agree to commit a breach of the ABM Treaty.'' A breach does not ripen until it actually occurs. The treaty clearly defines what constitutes a breach. Deploying multiple missile defense sites today would be a breach. Stating a goal of deploying multiple sites would only be a breach if there is no legal way to perform such a deployment within the confines of the treaty. Fortunately, there are two legal ways. The first is a new protocol to the treaty. This may be possible to negotiate. You do not know until you try. Remember, the original treaty allowed two sites. It was a subsequent agreement that limited us to just one site. A second option is to actually withdraw from the treaty. It is our legal right to withdraw with 60-days notice. In summary, Mr. President, while there are legal methods to deploy multiple sites within the framework of the ABM Treaty, there can be no anticipatory breach. I further support replacing the stated goal in the committee version of the bill with a new goal calling for the deployment of a treaty compliance system coupled with immediate negotiation for additional sites. This was a goal of the bipartisan Missile Defense Act of 1991. Unfortunately, in striking out the goal of a multiple site deployment, Senator Levin's amendment also strikes out the only statement that the goal of the United States is to protect our people from a nuclear missile attack. To me, this is unacceptable. As for demarcation provisions, I share many of Senator Levin's concerns. I believe we should leave the President the flexibility to negotiate modifications to the treaty as required with the guarantee of a Senate ratification to safeguard against unacceptable provisions. I regret that the two distinct separate provisions are in the same amendment. Mr. President, unless there can be some compromise--and I hope that there can be some compromise--on the goal of the Missile Defense Act I will have to vote against the Levin amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject any amendments that would reduce or eliminate funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority's Environmental Research Center. TVA's Environmental Research Center was once the Nation's most effective laboratory for developing new fertilizer and nutrient technologies that fueled the legendary gains in food and fiber production in the United States and around the world. Because of this work, TVA is largely responsible for the tremendous success of U.S. agriculture. During the decades TVA conducted its fertilizer and agricultural research programs, it built a strong base of expertise in chemistry, chemical engineering, process engineering, agronomy, and other related agricultural and nutritional sciences. Now TVA is capitalizing on this expertise in developing technologies to solve environmental waste problems in the Tennessee Valley as well as across the Nation. Today, TVA's Environmental Research Center is on the threshold of discovering new ways to prevent or reduce pollution of the air, land, and water from agricultural, municipal, and industrial operations. For our Nation to achieve agricultural and economic sustainability, we must have innovative technologies to operate our farms, factories, utilities, and cities in environmentally acceptable ways. The research and development underway at the Environmental Research Center will help us avoid a crisis in disposing our agriculture, municipal, and industrial wastes. In fact, some of the Environmental Research Center's technologies are already in use throughout the country in cleaning up contaminated sites, reducing pollution from agricultural, and converting wastes into value-added products. Let me cite a few examples of the impact that the Center's environmental and waste conversion work is already having across the country. These will serve as examples of the potential the Center has to fulfill the Nation's substantial environmental technology needs in the future: Pollution Prevention in Agriculture The Environmental Research Center's scientists have already developed pollution prevention technologies that are being used across the country. The Center is providing technical assistance in 70 agrichemical demonstration projects in 27 States. It is a tribute to the Environmental Research Center's work that 15 of the Center's demonstrators have won State and regional awards for excellence in environmental stewardship. A spinoff of the pollution prevention demonstration work with agricultural chemical suppliers is the impact that these retailers are having on farmers. The Center's demonstration sites are providing agri- dealers with information that they are using in promoting environmental stewardship with their farmer customers. These retailers are providing environmental services to their customers--services which will go a long way in helping solve the Nation's nonpoint source pollution problem. Animal Waste Management The technologies developed at the Environmental Research Center offer practical solutions to help manage the Nation's animal waste problems. The Center conducts 37 animal waste management projects in 10 States including high-tech composting for poultry wastes and poultry by- products. Research at the Center's constructed wetlands complex also contributes to solving severe pollution problems associated with the poultry and livestock industries. The animal and meat production industries are rapidly growing throughout the Nation to keep up with consumer demands. More than 20 States list poultry and poultry products as one of their top four agricultural income generators. But the downside of this $30 billion dollar a year industry is the tremendous volume of poultry litter and other wastes that must be disposed of or used in the environmentally acceptable way. The poultry waste issue is a serious problem for farmers and for the environment. The Center has research underway to develop technologies to convert poultry litter and other wastes into usable products. The Center's compost research and development facility will demonstrate innovative ways to use composting of poultry litter as an industrial process. The process will generate products with controllable properties and designated uses. The Center's researchers are making progress in investigating the use of nutrient-enhanced broiler litter as an organic-based plant food for turf. And poultry waste by-products are being evaluated as a feed source for ruminant animals and as a substitute in potting mixes for horticultural plants. Poultry litter also has potential for production of methane. The Center is exploring the commercial opportunities in this area. Some cutting-edge research underway at the Center is determining the potential of mixing poultry litter with heat-loving microorganisms to remediate PCB contaminated soils. This development can benefit many regions of the country where cost-effective technologies are needed to clean up contaminated soils. The Center has joined forces with USDA, EPA, and the poultry industry to establish a poultry water quality consortium. Together, these public and private organizations are promoting innovative ways to manage and convert poultry wastes to assure that surface and groundwater quality are protected. It is essential that this work continue. The Center has the expertise and research facilities to speed the development of needed technologies for animal waste management practices throughout the country. Environmental Technologies There is a national concern over reducing ozone concentrations in urban as well as rural areas of the country. America has spent billions of dollars on emissions reductions during the past decade. But we still have serious problems. Ninety-six urban areas affecting 63 million people were identified in 1990 as having ground-level ozone problems. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, but at ground level it causes respiratory problems, reduces agricultural crop production, and hinders business growth. The southeastern United States is especially susceptible to ozone exposure because of the region's warm temperatures, abundant sunshine, and high frequency of air stagnation, in addition, to the large percentage of forest land. To address this concern, the Center helped establish the southern oxidants study, a unique partnership of Federal agencies (TVA, EPA, NOAA, the National Park Service, NASA, and DOE), universities, industry, and regulatory agencies. The research conducted by this group has significantly improved our understanding of the factors that control ozone formation. This public-private partnership is recognized as an excellent example of the efficient use of limited Federal resources. Research results from the southern oxidants study have significant application to many other parts of the country. The Center has developed a genetically-engineered microbe that feeds on PCBs. This is a low cost way to clean up PCB-contaminated soils and will save millions of dollars annually in cleanup costs. The Center's constructed wetlands research facility is showing how to use this technology for more effective and low-cost cleanup of industrial, municipal, and animal wastes. The Center is working on an economical way to filter and remove industrial air pollutants from manufacturing plant emissions. For example, the system is removing 99 percent of styrene, and industrial pollutant, from the emissions of a boat manufacturing facility. The Center is working with the Department of Defense to clean up hazardous waste sites on military bases. Many defense sites have hazardous materials containing elemental phosphorus. The Center has found a way to clean up this problem economically. Let me briefly highlight additional environmental technologies the Environmental Research Center is developing to benefit the Nation: The Center is developing methods to predict environmental impacts of agricultural practices on nonpoint source pollution on a watershed scale. The Center's scientists are seeking ways to use waste materials from fossil fuel-fired electricity producing plants in the United States. These fossil fueled plants today generate 120 million tons annually of coal combustion wastes. The Center is making progress in developing uses for these wastes, such as in soil amendments, plastics, paint fillers, and construction materials. These and other uses for such wastes will significantly reduce the amount of coal-combustion wastes going to landfills or other storage areas. The Center is conducting research to detect, track, and remediate wastes and contaminants. These include organics and toxic metals in waste water from industrial, power generation, and municipal operations; oily contaminants to surface water (ponds, streams, and rivers); organic and inorganic contaminants in soil and groundwater; and chemical emissions to the air. The Center's scientists project that 40 percent of the remediation an restoration needs of the Nation can be handled by bioremediation technologies. These technologies use living organisms to destroy pollutants such as PCBs; and, these bioremediation technologies are more cost-effective than many of today's cleanup methods. The Center's biotechnical research technologies will help reduce the Nation's cost for hazardous waste remediation and site restoration which is estimated to be $1.7 trillion over the next 30 years. Mr. President, and my colleagues in the Senate, TVA's Environmental Research Center is addressing many of the concerns of the Nation in the environmental and waste management areas. As this chart shows, the Center is involved directly in environmental and waste management projects in 41 States. And the technologies being developed have significance for all the States, and indeed, the whole world. It makes no sense to cut funding for this effective, problem-solving research laboratory. Our Nation is at a crossroads. We have the unique responsibility today to manage the fragile balance between sustainable economic development and environmental protection. The Welfare of our generation and future generations will be affected by what we do today and in the early years of the 21st century. amendment no. 2065 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to submit the plan to reduce the number of division offices within the Army Corps of Engineers to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives) On page 9, line 24, insert ``(including the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives)'' after ``(Congress''.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in hailing the faithful service of Abby Saffold, who has served as secretary to the Democratic caucus since 1987. Abby has been one of the greatest fixtures in this body, and I cannot imagine the remarkably different place this Chamber would have been without her. I remember well the days when this body was not so divided by party lines. Abby is a rare example of a person who provided her expertise to all, regardless of party. She did not concern herself with which side of the aisle we were on. She was helpful to anyone who needed of her. I am sure Abby could tell remarkable stories about the questions that were posed to her throughout her career in the Senate. If someone was planning a vacation for 1999, they would first call Abby to ask if the Senate would be in session--and she would know. I am sure that she has been asked countless times ``When will be be out of here tonight?'' ``What's on the lunch menu today?'' or ``What's the best joke you can tell me, Abby?'' Abby has served as a school teacher and a case workers, and I am sure that those experiences have led to her expertise in working for and with Members of the Senate. She is well known for her endless knowledge of legislative procedures and negotiating skills, and for avoiding disaster through her expertise. Abby was here with us all the late nights, still sharp, awake, and aware. There was no question whether she would be on the floor the next morning, and she was just as cheerful. Abby is undoubtedly one of the brightest luminaries we have had the opportunity to work with here in the Senate. She learned from her experiences in Senator Byrd's office, working her way up from legislative correspondent to her position as the secretary of the majority, and most recently, as the secretary to the minority. Senator Byrd taught her well. He passed on his attention for detail and professionalism to a truly great staffer. In appointing her, Senator Byrd gave us one of the greatest gifts any colleague could have--the opportunity for us to know the endless kindness of Abby Saffold. As Senator Byrd recently said, ``Abby has done it all, and done it all very, very well.'' As I look toward my own retirement, I would like to express by best wishes to Abby for hers. I doubt I will ever meet any finer person. We will all miss her presence here in this Chamber.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am joining with my colleague Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to introduce at the request of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1995. This bill contains some proposals carried over from previous Congresses, but it also contains some new proposals which the Federal judiciary believes will enhance and improve its operation. Section 101 would provide Federal authority for probation and pretrial service officers to carry firearms under rules prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, if approved by the appropriate district court. Section 202 would increase the civil filing fee from $120 to $150. Section 304 would eliminate in-State plaintiff diversity jurisdiction. Section 309 would raise the jurisdictional amount in diversity cases from $50,000 to $75,000 and index such amount for inflation to be adjusted at the end of each year evenly divisible by five. Section 409 would authorize Federal judges to carry firearms for purposes of personal security. Section 410 would change the date of temporary judgeships created in the 101st Congress under Public Law 101-650. Under current law, the 5 year term, after which new vacancies are not filled, began to run on the date of enactment of the public law. Under the proposed revision, the 5-year period would not begin until the confirmation date of the judge filling the temporary position. Section 504 repeals a provision in a continuing appropriation resolution that bars annual cost-of-living adjustments in pay for Federal judges except as specifically authorized by Congress. Section 603 would amend the Criminal Justice Act to delegate authority to the Judicial Conference to establish compensation rates and case compensation maximum amounts which are paid to attorneys who provide services under CJA. The foregoing are just some of the provisions of the legislation we are introducing by request today. I do not agree with each and every proposal in the bill we are introducing, and I reserve the right to look at each specific proposal on its merits. I am confident that the Judiciary Committee will give this bill careful consideration and look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee in the weeks ahead.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on the Mall this afternoon, just across the reflecting pool from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, another unique symbol commemorating the sacrifice of our Nation's veterans was dedicated. The long-overdue memorial to our Korean war veterans was finally and officially opened to the public today, July 27, 1995, the 42d anniversary of the armistice agreement ending that conflict. This stirring memorial truly deserves its rightful place on the national Mall, for, as a Washington Post editorial succinctly put it yesterday, `` `Korea' was a convulsive but finally proud event in the tradition of the presidents honored on this hallowed national ground.'' On the Korean Peninsula over 40 years ago, brave Americans led a score of nations in successfully thwarting Communist aggression. ``It was a moment in the history of freedom, and the 54,000 Americans who died and the many others who fought there earned the benediction in stone and steel now * * * bestowed.'' Some have called the Korean war ``the forgotten war,'' since it did not [[Page S 10789]] end in triumph--like World War II--or in bitter defeat--like Vietnam. It neither united us the way World War II did, nor did it divide us to the degree that Vietnam did. It was not even called a war, as such, but was generally referred to as a ``police action,'' or ``conflict.'' The memorial dedicated on the Mall today not only honors those who served and died in the Korean war, it also gives them their proper place in our Nation's collective memory. The Korean war is significant in our history for many reasons, one of those being that it was the stage for the first war in which a world organization--the United Nations--played a military role. It was a tremendous challenge for the United Nations, which had come into existence only 5 years earlier. We only recently commemorated its 50th anniversary, so it is perhaps fitting that the opening of the Korean Veterans Memorial coincides with that celebration, since it was the United Nations' first major test. The Korean war began on June 25, 1950, when troops from Communist- ruled North Korea invaded South Korea. The United Nations called the invasion a violation of international peace and demanded that the Communists withdraw from the south. After the Communists refused and kept fighting, the United Nations asked its members to provide military aid to South Korea. Sixteen U.N. countries sent troops to help the South Koreans, and a total of 41 nations sent military equipment or food and other supplies. As we know, the largest share of U.N. support for South Korea came from the United States, and the greatest burden was born by American servicemen and women. China aided North Korea, and the former Soviet Union gave military equipment to the North Koreans. The war went on for 3 years, ending on July 27, 1953, with an armistice agreement between the United Nations and North Korea. A permanent peace treaty remains an elusive goal as 37,000 American troops to this day remain in South Korea to discourage a resumption of hostilities. In many ways, the Korean war set the pattern for future United States military efforts. It saw important innovations in military technology, such as fighting between jet aircraft as American F-86's battled Soviet-built MiG-15's. It was the first conventional war that could have easily escalated to atomic dimensions. The war unalterably changed the nature of superpower relations. The dramatic American demobilization after World War II was reversed and the United States has since maintained a strong military force. Cold war tensions mounted, and some historians argue that the war fostered dangerous ``McCarthyism'' at home. Hopefully, this moving memorial will help Americans of all ages come to better understand and appreciate the importance of the sacrifices made by those who fought and died during the Korean war. On this day of the dedication of their memorial, I stand with each of my colleagues in saluting all veterans of the Korean war. Their service and sacrifices-- as well as that of their families--are not forgotten. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Washington Post editorial, ``The Korean War: On the Mall,'' from July 26 be printed in the Record.