Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the best teachers I ever had, Martha Kilpatrick. She taught me at Colbert County High School and has kept in touch over the years by attending my town meetings in Reform, AL, her hometown, and by sending me letters and news clippings from time to time. She is a dear friend to me, and I know she had a great deal to do with guiding me at an early age and pointing me in the right direction. Her wisdom, advice, and encouragement were helpful to me not only as a student long ago, but also throughout the several stages of my career. It might surprise my colleagues to learn that I still have former teachers who are alive and well, but Martha is indeed among them. On April 25, she will turn 80, and Reform is planning a gala celebration of this milestone in her life, to take place on the 22d at the Methodist Church there. She will be surrounded by many friends and family members, each of whom have been influenced by Martha in special and unique ways. Martha Hanson was born in Columbus, MS, and as a baby moved with her family to Carrollton, AL, where she spent her formative years. Her family later moved to Reform, where she graduated high school. That same year, she entered Alabama College at Montevallo, now the University of Montevallo, where she majored in education. Her entire career was spent as a teacher in Alabama and Georgia. Her husband, Wilbur Kilpatrick, was born and raised in Reform, and although they lived in a variety of places during their married life, Reform was always home to them. Martha continued her own education in Atlanta, earning her masters degree and teaching in that school system for many years. When their children, Kay and Joe, were grown, Martha and Wilbur retired and moved back to the quiet peace of their roots in Reform, where she remains today. She has three grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Her home is a virtual museum of the things she has collected over the years--bottles, stamps, salt and pepper shakers, antique Christmas ornaments, pictures, linens, glassware, and books. Her husband has passed away, and Martha lives alone in the large, comfortable museum of her life. She stays busy doing things for others, as she has always done. One of Martha's great characteristics is making and keeping friends. She is perhaps her local post office's best private customer, keeping an active correspondence with friends and family all over the world, including myself. She never forgets birthdays, anniversaries, special holidays, and her cards saying ``Get well soon'' or ``With deepest sympathy'' are always the first to arrive when a crisis hits. Martha Hanson Kilpatrick has been one of the true treasures of my life and the lives of many others. I am proud to commend her on an outstanding life, one that has been lived out in the best American tradition, her nurturing of young minds, and her sincere love for family and friends, whom she counts as her most valuable collection of all. As she turns 80 later this month, I trust those many family members and friends will reflect on the outstanding qualities this extraordinary lady has exhibited throughout her life. We can all learn from her.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to acknowledge the importance of mental health to everyone's and society's well-being and to call our attention to counseling as a vital part of maintaining good mental health. Mental health counseling is provided along a continuum of patient needs, from educational and preventive services, to diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, to long-term and acute care. It assists individuals and groups with problemsolving, personal and social development, decisionmaking, and self-awareness. Such counseling is offered through community mental health agencies, private practices, psychiatric hospitals, college campuses, and rehabilitation centers. It is often provided in conjunction with other mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, and marriage and family therapists so that the most appropriate treatment for each patient is assured. It is provided by professionals with advanced degrees in counseling or their training and experience. They are currently licensed in 40 States and the District of Columbia. I want to congratulate the American Mental Health Counselors Association on their designation of April 30 to May 6, 1995 as ``National Mental Health Counseling Week,'' and urge each and every American to seek the assistance of a qualified mental health counselor when needed. After all, our mental health is just as important as our physical health.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, all Members in the Senate are faced with making difficult decisions almost daily. This day marks one of the most difficult decisions I have been faced with during my 16-plus years in this body. After wrestling with this decision for some time, I have decided not to seek reelection in 1996, and to retire from elective office at the end of my term. Simply put, the time to pass the torch to another generation is near. I have undergone a series of medical examinations by specialists in recent months. While I have problems, nevertheless, my health is good, and I am assured I face no predictable crisis. I continue to work as I have throughout my adult life. While in Washington, I spend 6\1/2\ days a week in the office; and while in Alabama, a similar amount of time is devoted to Senate duties. My health problems have not slowed me down, and I do not expect any change in my work habits in the foreseeable future. This has not been an easy decision because I have always enjoyed campaigning, and the desire to once again hit the campaign trail is a powerful urging. I have been particularly gratified with the overwhelming offer of volunteered support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike urging me to run again. I believe I can be reelected, perhaps not with the high percentage of more than 60 percent of the vote that I have received in my last four primary and four general statewide elections, but I am confident I could win by a good majority. There are numerous factors that have entered into my decision. There is no compelling reason to go into detail about these factors, other than to say that in fairness to any who may seek to succeed me the time to make my announcement is now. At the conclusion of my term, I will have served the people of Alabama for 24 years, and I hope that I will be looked upon as a public servant who has served with dignity, integrity, and diligence, worthy of the confidence and trust that the people of Alabama bestow upon me. Throughout my years in the Senate, I have endeavored to stay in touch with the people. I have visited each of the 67 counties in Alabama at least once a year, except for one year when I spent considerable time in the hospital during the recess periods. I have listened to Alabamians from all walks of life on every conceivable issue in over 1,000 town meetings and 500 high school visits. I have endeavored to represent Alabama in a studied, impartial, and fairminded manner. My record certainly indicates at least an independent streak. I hope Alabamians know that my decisions were based on what I thought was in the best interest of my State and Nation. While some may argue or disagree with my decisions, I was convinced that I was right. And I believe most Alabamians felt that nothing more could be expected of me. My service in the U.S. Senate has been rewarding, and I trust of benefit to the people of America and Alabama. I am indeed grateful that America faces no immediate threat to her borders from foreign military powers. I am particularly proud of the role that I played in rebuilding our Armed Forces and military strength during the aftermath of the Vietnam war. This commitment on the part of our Nation contributed to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and its Communist philosophy. This commitment proved itself again during the Persian Gulf war. With my own experiences in World War II and observations since that time, I felt compelled that we must at all times endeavor to obtain lasting peace, and that the only road to achieving this goal was and is through strength. I am particularly proud of my efforts in other areas, such as agriculture, the judiciary, education, improved race relations, technology advancements, medical research, family values, the war against crime and drugs, the space program, ethics in government, and many other fields. The agriculture community, while small in number, is considerably better off today than when I came to the Senate in 1979. During my years on the Agriculture Committee, we have been able to craft farm policy which provides market stability and allows U.S. farmers to aggressively pursue international markets. At the same time, these farm programs have dramatically reduced the cost to the U.S. Treasury. This year may prove to be the most crucial for the American farmers with the well-organized effort in this Congress to abolish farm programs that have worked well for the consumer as well as the farmer. As most of my colleagues know, I came to this body after serving as Chief Justice of Alabama. I brought to the Senate a desire to achieve much efforts have been focused on improving the Federal judicial system and relieving court congestion in criminal and civil matters. I have always subscribed to the expression, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' We have been successful to a major degree in our efforts to achieve these goals. However, much remains to be done. This country's system of justice today faces one of its greatest threats in the Congress. The foundation of our civil justice system and more than 500 years of the development of common law are under attack, including the right of trial by jury. We will continue the battles to improve the administration of justice, as well as maintain its historic role of protecting the weak, the minorities, and the defenseless. Mr. President, for 13 years I served on the Senate Ethics Committee-- two periods as chairman. My service on the Ethics Committee can be described with many adjectives, none of which include enjoyable. From the description ``of how it used to be,'' I would have to say that I am convinced that the Senate has made great strides in ethical behavior and standards during my time in this body. While there is still room for much improvement, I am, nevertheless, convinced that the Senators now serving are the most ethical in the history of the Senate. During the last several decades, including the time that I have spent in the Senate, there has been much improvement in civil rights. However, race relations continue as a divisive issue in numerous ways. The path toward the achievement of equal opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, color gender, or creed, has many miles to go. We foster democratic principles throughout the world and have seen democracy make great strides in many nondemocratic countries. Yet our own democracy faces its greatest threat from within. Elected officials, media personalities, elements of political parties, and other organizations strive to pit one group of Americans against another. We must set a new course in this Congress and across the land--a course of moderation, tolerance, responsibility, and compassion. We need to return to the traditional value of being just plain neighborly. Not until we become genuinely ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,'' can this country realize its potential for true greatness. I am proud of my staff. I have always been proud of my staff. Most of them have come from Alabama but, regardless, all have worked with devotion, dedication, and professionalism. They have worked with me to assist thousands of Alabamians--and I might say thousands of Americans outside of Alabama--in every imaginable area. Staff members seldom receive praise, but I thank them from the bottom of my heart for the great job that they have done and the job that I know they will continue to do during the remaining months of my service in the Senate. No one knows what the future will be, but I plan to return to my beloved Alabama and devote more of my time to the people in my life that I treasure the most--my devoted and lovely wife Elizabeth Ann, who is affectionately also know as ``Mike''--my son Tom and his wonderful, talented, and beautiful wife Cornelia--and, Mr. President, the two finest grandchildren a person could be blessed with, Wilson Carmichael Heflin and Mary Catherine Heflin. Wilson is known to his ``Pop'' as ``Wil,'' and he calls his sister ``K.K.'' because he says Mary Catherine is too much of a mouthful. I do not wish to omit from the treasured list my other friends and relatives in Alabama, particularly those in the Shoals area. I will enjoy living the remainder of my days in my hometown, for Tuscumbia, AL, is a wonderful little town to be from and it is the best little town in America to go home to. Mr. President, while my career and work here in the Senate is yet to be completed for I still have much to do, I, nevertheless, thank the people of Alabama ``who I so dearly love'' for the faith and trust bestowed upon me which allowed me to serve as Chief Justice of Alabama for 6 years and as a U.S. Senator for three terms. I also thank my Creator for the blessing of health during my three score and thirteen years thus far, and for having the opportunity to serve this great Nation and my fellow citizens. Thank you, Mr. President. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we all know those special people who just seem to epitomize selfless devotion and service to others. They cheerfully go about helping others in numerous ways that help to brighten countless lives, asking for nothing in return. One such woman is Inah Mae Abramson, of Florence, AL, who was the subject of a recent article in her local newspaper. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article, which appeared in the Florence TimesDaily, be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. HEFLIN. I want to commend and congratulate Inah Mae Abramson for the hard work, love of people, generous spirit, and genuine concern she always displays through service to those around her. She truly is a living example of civility, dedication, affection, and love. Exhibit 1 [From the Florence (AL) TimesDaily] Work That's Never Done: Abramson Believes in Putting Herself Last, Doing Good Deeds For Others (By Lucille Prince) The old saying ``Man may work from sun to sun, but women's work is never done'' still applies to Inah Mae Abramson, even though she retired 28 years ago. When she is not busy in her office at home, she's out visiting the sick, the elderly or people in nursing homes working at the community center or attending a church meeting. One of her pet projects is sending ``sunshine cards,'' and she keeps an assortment of cards on hand. She has special cards that are sold by the United Methodist Women of Wesley Chapel, with proceeds going to missions. She is the secretary-treasurer of the historic cemetery located at Wesley Chapel. A charter member of the Florence Business and Professional Women's club, she has served the club as president, secretary, treasurer, district director and member of the state board. For six years, she was chairman of the BPW Santa Claus, securing gifts for mental hospitals. Abramson was once head of a BPW fund to secure a piano, stereo and speaker stand for Mitchell-Hollingsworth Annex. This was accomplished when Dr. C.F. Lucky made a memorial for his mother toward purchase of a piano. The club simply completed this project. During World War II, she wrote regularly to all men from her church and places of employment who were in service, and she sent them small gifts. ``I love to do things for people,'' Abramson said. ``My parents, James Emmett and Annie B. Darby Young, were Christians. Mama said that if you do other people good and put yourself last, you'll come out on top.'' The various awards Abramson has received indicate that she listened to her mother. In 1960, the Florence Business and Professional Women's Club named her Women of the Year. In 1967, she received the first Special Citizen Award presented by the Muscle Shoals Chamber of Commerce. The award was given on Nov. 14, 1967, just 10 days before her marriage to Henry Benhart Abramson. The chamber president at that time was the late Dick Biddle. In presenting the award, Biddle said, ``Miss Young, soon to be Mrs. Abramson, gives unselfishly to others each day of her life. She lives and appreciates people. Her family and friends know they can call on her anytime, and she is never too busy to help anyone in need. Realizing this, Gov. (George) Wallace chose her to serve as chairman of the Women's Division of Lauderdale County on the State Traffic Commission.'' (The purpose of the commission was to make motorists more aware of traffic rules.) In 1987, she was named Alumnus of the Year by the Central High Alumni Association. Abramson was once given the title ``Miss Methodism'' by a district Methodist newspaper. This honor came because she was volunteer secretary for three district superintendents before the Florence District opened a full-time office. A history enthusiast, Abramson has been a student of history all of her life. She likes to keep up with the current events, which, she reminds everyone, will soon become history. She attended Beulah Elementary School, and was salutatorian when she finished Central High School in 1936. ``I decided on a business career and attended Bob Jones University, then located at Cleveland, Tenn.,'' she said. ``My first job was with my cousins, Murphy Brothers Store in Central Heights. I later worked for one year at the county agent's office, then worked another year for W.D. Peeler, registrar at the courthouse.'' In 1939, she accepted a job at First National Bank and worked there until 1945, the year that many men returned from World War II. She left the bank to operate Blue Bird Ice Cream and Sandwich Shop for one year. ``In November 1947, I was employed by Florence Clinic as secretary to a group of 11 physicians and remained there until October 1967,'' she said. She vividly remembers that when the Sabine Vaccine Program was begun in Lauderdale County, Dr. J.G. Middleton was chairman. As an employee of the Florence Clinic, she became his assistant in setting up and promoting the vaccine program. ``My job was to help him set up places and times to give out the vaccine and to let people know that it was free,'' she said. ``Since I was a member of the BPW Club, I solicited the club's help in promoting this cause.'' She recalled that during the years she was with the bank and clinic, there were few electrical machines. ``There were no electric typewriters, and computers were unknown,'' she said. ``About that time, Florence was just emerging into growth,'' she added. ``Working in the bank, I knew all the attorneys in Florence at that time. Being in the customer- service department gave me a chance to know most of the patrons of the bank. In the 1940s, bank statements had not caught on, and patrons brought their passbooks in to get employees to balance their bank books for them.'' When she married at age 49, she gave up her professional career. ``I just started another career,'' she said. Her husband was also an ardent church and community worker. As a couple, they spent much time and effort serving both the church and their community. He was one of the planners and board members of the Central Volunteer Fire Department, and she served as secretary. Abramson said that she and her husband had 19 happy years before his death Oct. 24, 1986. She still lives in their home at Central, and she says that she is blessed with wonderful neighbors and family who are constantly with her. Wesley Chapel and Central will always have special meaning to Abramson. She was born in the Central Heights community Feb. 16, 1918. She became a part of the church when her parents took her to a service there at age three weeks. She became a member in 1929, when the church was a part of the Cloverdale Charge of three churches and another added later. She was the charge recorder for many years. When she returned from college, she became active as a teacher, youth counselor, treasurer and a member of the United Methodist Women, then called the Woman's Missionary Society. She was district counselor of youth subdistrict events and secretary of the district Christian Workers School. One of her former employers once introduced Inah Mae Abramson as ``a person who not only performs her work efficiently, with cheerfulness and zeal, but she always has a smile on her face and exemplifies a truly dedicated Christian woman whose work is never done.''

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate and commend the men's basketball team of my undergraduate alma mater, Birmingham- Southern College. Birmingham-Southern won its second national title in 6 years on the night of March 20 when it defeated Pfeiffer College of North Carolina 92 to 76 in the NAIA national tournament championship game. The Panthers of Birmingham-Southern rolled through the tournament just as they did the season, winning five games here. They ended their magnificent season with 32 straight wins and a 35-2 season overall, a school record. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Birmingham Post- Herald on the Panthers' basketball championship game be printed in the Record. I heartily congratulate Birmingham-Southern Coach Duane Reboul and all his players for their hard work, team spirit, winning attitude, and overall class. They are the epitome of champions.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the Democratic Party of Alabama lost one of its most ardent supporters and activists on March 12, when Madison County Chairwoman Jennie Blair passed away. She was a strong, dedicated woman who contributed greatly to her State and community over the years. Jennie was a very eloquent spokesperson for the causes and programs that help the people who are least able to help themselves. She was a positive force for good. Activists on the other side felt a kindred spirit with her, and also felt the loss. She was a retired South Central Bell employee and labor activist who had long been involved in local Democratic Party politics. Just last month, Jennie was elected to a 4-year term as Madison County chairwoman. Huntsville, Alabama's third-largest city, is located in Madison. A native of Lincoln County, TN, she was a member of the Communications Workers of America and a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. She held many other leadership positions in the State and national party, and played a pivotal role in the 1992 convention. Jennie Blair's determination, energy, enthusiasm, and drive will be sorely missed by those who knew and worked with and against her. She took her politics seriously, and truly believed in the principles of the Democratic Party. She believed that Government can be a positive force in people's lives and was never shy about expressing that view. She was a dynamic example of the best things about politics and public service.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have joined my colleague Senator Hatch of Utah in proposing an amendment to exempt items of appropriations provided for the judicial branch from enrollment in separate bills for presentment to the President. The doctrine of separation of powers recognizes the importance of protecting the judicial branch of government against improper interference from the legislative or executive branch. This doctrine is recognized in article III of the Constitution which protects salaries of article III judges. Similarly the Budget and Accounting Act provides that requests for appropriations for the judicial branch shall be submitted to the president and transmitted by him to Congress without change. Thus it would be inconsistent to prohibit the President from changing the budget of the judicial branch prior to submission to the Congress, but then by the line-item veto legislation to give the President the authority to change the judiciary's appropriation line-by-line. A little history may help explain the basis for our bipartisan amendment. Congress created the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in 1939 which now has the responsibility for budget submissions through the President and on to the Congress. Prior to that time budget submissions were provided by the Department of Justice, which is an executive branch agency. During the 1930's, according to testimony given to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee by Chief Judge Gilbert Merritt, chairman of the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Justice Department often rejected the judicial branch's requests for funds, denied requests for new judges, cut travel funds, and denied other requests for appropriate staff support. Congress reacted to this situation by creating the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and by directing it to submit the budget of the judiciary without change by the executive branch. Congress acted to protect the independence of the judicial branch, and I believe this protection should continue. The protection should continue because often the executive branch of government is a litigant, both as plaintiff and defendant, in lawsuits in the Federal courts. Subtle or otherwise, the judiciary should be insulated from undue presssure from the executive branch. Further, and most importantly, we are not giving the judicial branch a blank check for any appropriation it wants. The judiciary's budget will continue to be subjected to full congressional review and scrutiny. The judicial branch will still have to appear before the Appropriations Committee and defend its budget request, and we in Congress can amend or change that request as we deem necessary. I believe that failure to exempt the judicial branch from the provisions of the pending line-item veto legislation will do violence to the separation of powers that was established by our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the separate enrollment version of a line-item veto. In the 103d Congress, I cosponsored S. 92, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Separate Enrollment Authority Act, which was sponsored by my good friend and colleague Senator Hollings. I am pleased that the separate enrollment approach is now emerging as the compromise version of the line-item veto that will hopefully pass Congress and be signed into law by the President. In my judgment, the line-item veto, if enacted into law, would provide the President with an effective weapon with which to fight wasteful Government spending. Over the past few years, a consensus has developed, even among most Members of Congress, that, as the 1989 report of the National Economic Commission stated: ``The balance of power on budget issues has swung too far from the Executive toward the Legislative Branch.'' This imbalance has most likely contributed to the deficit spending of recent years. It is believed by many that the President, exclusively representing the general, national interest of the country as a whole, is more inclined to oppose Government spending which only serves parochial interests, yet increases the national debt. Increasing the budgetary power of the President relative to the Congress would therefore lessen the current bias toward more pork barrel spending and strengthen the bias which favors national priorities. The largest obstacle that we face as a nation to sustainable, long- term economic growth is our huge national debt. Although we have made substantial progress in reducing our annual budget deficits over the past 2 years, cutting them in half in real terms, the national debt is still standing at an unacceptably high level. The national debt as a percentage of the economy, as measured by gross domestic product, or GDP, now stands at 52 percent. In other words, the size of our national debt is just over half the size of the output of our economy for 1 year. To put today's figure in historical perspective, the national debt as a percentage of the economy reached a peak of 114 percent in 1946 because of the debt incurred to finance our efforts in relative to the economy declined steadily over the years even during the Vietnam war and Great Society years, to a low of 26 percent by fiscal year 1981. This is because our economy grew much faster than the national debt during this period. This downward trend in the size of the national debt, which is common in times of peace, reversed itself in 1981 and rose over the next 12 years. The national debt doubled in real terms, from a low of 26 percent in fiscal year 1981 to a high of 52 percent in 1993 due to the huge deficits we ran in the 1980's. In other words, our national debt grew twice as fast as the economy, the first time in American history this has happened in peacetime. The debt runup of the 1980's is unique in American history, and it is worth repeating that it is the only time in our history that the national debt has grown substantially in peacetime. We have had only three similar runups in the national debt during the 219 years of the existence of the United States: during the Civil War, during World War I, and during World War II. During the peacetime periods after each of the three major wars just mentioned, during which it was necessary to increase the national debt, we returned to prewar levels of national debt. Now it is time to return to pre-1980's levels of debt. We have made a good start by cutting the deficit in half, and thereby halting the growth of the national debt. It ha been stabilized at 52 percent of GDP for the last 2 years, as the economy and the debt have grown at about the same pace. Our next task is to start reducing our level of debt by balancing the budget, thereby allowing the economy to grow much faster than the debt, because the debt will not be growing at all. In my judgment, it will be necessary to reform the current budget process in order to achieve the desired end of budget balance. That is why I have fought so hard for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and for a Presidential line-item veto. Constitutions in 43 States provide for a line-item veto whereby the Governors have the ability to eliminate individual provisions or reduce amounts of spending in legislation presented for their signature. The line-item veto has a proven track record on the State level at discouraging and preventing unnecessary and wasteful spending. Because it has been a proven, effective tool against excessive spending on the State level, it would make an effective tool on the national level as well. In 1992, 188 Governors and former Governors, including Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Clinton, were surveyed with regard to the line-item veto. Nearly 70 percent of those who responded said that, as Governors, they had found the line-item veto useful. Ninety-two percent of the past and present Governors surveyed support a line-item veto on the Federal level in order to restrain Federal spending. Also in 1992, the General Accounting Office evaluated the potential effectiveness of the line-item veto on the Federal level. The GAO report stated, and I quote at length: If the President had line-item veto authority from fiscal years 1984 through 1989 and used that authority to reduce or eliminate each item to which an objection was raised in the Statements of Administration Policy, we estimate that the savings would have ranged from $7 billion to $17 billion per year, for a cumulative 6-year total of about $70 billion. . . . This would have reduced Federal deficits and borrowing by 6.7 percent, from the $1,059 billion that actually occurred during that period to $989 billion. . . . In addition, the reduced federal borrowing associated with the program savings explicitly shown would have resulted in interest cost savings. The line-item veto has bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. In addition, Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton are advocates of the line-item veto at the Federal level. In addition, according to Gallup surveys, large majorities of Americans spanning more than four decades have consistently favored the line-item veto. There has been some talk of the separate enrollment line-item veto creating a bureaucratic ``cut and paste'' nightmare in the enrolling clerk's office. But these nightmare scenarios are unfounded. Due to the modern computer technology we enjoy in Congress, separate enrollment would not pose a prohibitive burden on the clerk's staff. In fact, such technology makes the process quite simple. I urge my colleagues to support the line-item veto. This is a clear opportunity to seriously address our biggest national problem-- excessive deficit spending--with a realistic, proven solution. The voters have spoken; it is time to end wasteful Government spending. Let us give the President the line-item veto through the separate enrollment mechanism.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Heflin pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 31 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein wishes to make some remarks. In the event her remarks are not begun or finished when the hour of 10 arrives, I ask unanimous consent that time for morning business be extended to allow her to complete her remarks.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a constitutional amendment to prevent the desecration of the American flag. As an original cosponsor along with Senator Hatch and 42 of our colleagues, I urge our colleagues to join in protecting the sanctity of this symbol of our great Nation. As I have said before on the Senate floor, I feel that the Supreme Court's decision in Texas versus Johnson, incorrectly places flag burning under the protection of the first amendment. In my judgement, it is our responsibility to change that decision and return the flag to the position of respect it deserves. Few people would disagree with the argument that the American flag stands as one of the most powerful and meaningful symbols of freedom ever created. In the dissent in Texas versus Johnson, Chief Justice Rehnquist states in his opening paragraph: For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our Nation, a uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way * * * Johnson did here. Justice Stevens calls the flag a national asset much like the Lincoln Memorial. He states that: Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag. I must agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens in their belief that the flag should be protected from such desecration. However, I believe that the flag also has a tangible value. I feel that the court could have expressed an opinion that would have allowed protection to both values, for in that case, the flag was stolen. The flag holds a mighty grip over many people in this country. Its mystical appeal is as unique to every person as a fingerprint. Thousands of Americans have followed the flag into battle and thousands of these Americans have left these battles in coffins draped proudly by the American flag. Nothing quite approaches the power of the flag as it drapes those who died for it, or the power of the flag as it is handed to the widow of that fallen soldier. The meaning behind these flags goes far beyond the cloth used to make the flag or the dyes used to color Old Glory red, white, and blue. The flag reaches to the very heart of what it means to be an American. It would be a tragedy for us to allow the power of the flag to be undermined through the legal desecration of the flag. Allowing the legal burning of that flag creates a mockery of the great respect so many patriotic Americans have for the flag. judicially wrong As I have stated before, I feel on many different levels that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong. I feel it was wrong for me personally, it was wrong for patriotism, it was wrong for this country, but perhaps most importantly, this decision was judicially wrong. I want to emphasize that although I am a strong believer in first amendment rights, I recognize that first amendment rights are not absolute and unlimited. There have been numerous decisions of the Supreme Court that limit freedom of expression. Some of history's great protectors of the freedom of speech have agreed that the first amendment is not absolute. Many of these protectors have agreed that the flag is a symbol of such profound importance that protecting it is permissible. Later in this speech I will be quoting from some of the protectors of both the flag and the first amendment such as Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, Justice John Paul Stevens, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In a landmark case reflecting the Supreme Courts long held belief that the freedom of expression is not absolute, the court in Shenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) stated that: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that: The question in every case is whether the words [actions] used are used in such clear circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the Congress has a right to prevent. and the fisticuffs which have broken out in flag burning attempts show that flag burning should not be protected by the first amendment. What if the flag burning had occurred in wartime? Certainly, a clear and present danger would be present. Justice Stevens wrote in Los Angeles City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent 466 U.S. 789 (1984) that: The first amendment does not guarantee the right to imply every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places. Arguments have been made that limitations on the freedom of expression refer only to bodily harm, however, the Supreme Court has recognized the need for individuals to protect their honor, integrity, and reputation when injured by libel or slander. See: New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (providing standards regarding the libel of public figures); Time v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967) (providing standards regarding libel of private individuals). These holdings protect an individual's honor from defamation. I see no reason why the honor of our flag should not be protected. Arguments have also been made that limitations on free speech involve only civil suits. However, the Court has continually upheld criminal statutes involving obscene language and pornography. There is: New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (upholding a New York statute regarding child pornography); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (this case provides much of the current legal framework for the regulation of obscenity). The U.S. Supreme Court has even upheld criminal statutes involving draft card burning. In United States v. O'Brian, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), the Court upheld the Federal statute which prohibited the destruction or mutilation of a draft card. In reaching this decision the Court expressly stated: [W]e cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ``speech'' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. Certainly the people of America have a right to expect that the honor, integrity, and reputation of this Nation's flag should be protected. If draft card burning can be prohibited, surely burning the American flag can also be prohibited. Does a draft card have more honor than the American flag? Certainly not. In an earlier decision involving the desecration of the flag, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in dissent in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 577 (1969): I believe that the States and the Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace * * * however, it is difficult for me to imagine that, had the Court faced this issue, it would have concluded otherwise. In this same case, Justice Hugo Black dissented stating: It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense. I do not think that anyone can question that Hugo Black and Earl Warren were champions of the first amendment, but they recognized that the flag was something different, something special. The Supreme Court substantiated this view in Smith v. Coguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974), when the majority of the Court noted that: [C]ertainly nothing prevents a legislature from defining the substantial specificity what constitutes forbidden treatment of the United States flags. Finally I would like to quote from Justice Stevens in Texas v. Johnson, when he says about the flag: It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other people who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity and survival. I am a strong believer that the rights under the first amendment should be fully protected and do not feel that an amendment changing these rights should be adopted except in very rare instances. The Founding Fathers, in drafting article V of the Constitution, intended that if it would be extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and a difficult ratification process requiring the vote of three-fourths of the States. The history of this country shows that only 27 amendments to the Constitution have been adopted and only 17 after the Bill of Rights-- containing the first 10 amendments--were ratified. Some may ask why have a constitutional amendment; why not try legislation? To those I would say the Senate has passed statutes concerning flag desecration. As a body we have tried to oppose the protection of flag desecration, but statutory law has not worked. We have a number of groups that have joined together to form the Citizen's Flag Alliance. There are about 90 organizations in this wide-ranging coalition. In addition, 46 States' legislatures have passed memorializing resolutions calling for the flag to be protected by the Congress. In my judgment, we should heed this call and act decisively to ensure that the American flag remains protected and continues to hold the high place we have afforded it in both our hearts and history. The flag is indeed an important national asset which we must always support as we would support the country herself. In closing, I want to share with you the eloquent words of Henry Ward Beecher's work, ``The American Flag,'' which expresses this sentiment: A thoughtful mind, when it sees a national's flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the Nation that sets it forth.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it is interesting to note that St. Patrick's Day is a special holiday which is only observed in Ireland and the United States. On this day, the color green is traditionally worn in both countries, by people from many different nationalities and backgrounds. Ireland and the United States share many other strong bonds in addition to their unique celebrations of this day. There is a deep love for individual freedom and liberty today and throughout the history of both countries. In America's early days, another bond which existed between the two lands was a common enemy--the English crown. Americans and Irishmen experienced the tyranny of the English king and the oppression of British troops. Our forefathers removed the yoke of British rule through the Revolutionary War and eliminated the continuing harassment by British through the War of 1812. In 1798, in Ireland, there was a similar revolt. A group of men formed a resistance known as the ``united Irishmen.'' To demonstrate allegiance to their cause and to each other, they wore the color green. While this band of Irishmen fought valiantly, they were defeated by the mighty army commanded by Gen. Charles Cornwallis. After Cornwallis' victory over the united Irishmen, the British tried to break the Irish spirit by declaring the wearing of green against the law. Many songs and poems were written to protest this tyranny. I recall parts of a poem entitled ``The Wearin' O' the Green'': O Paddy dear, an' did ye hear the news that's goin' round? The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground! No more St. Patrick's Day we'll keep, his colour can't be seen For there's a cruel law again the wearin' o' the green. It is hard to fathom that just as our forefathers were embarking on the greatest experiment in democratic government known to man, and enjoying the rights and liberties for which they had fought, men and women in Ireland were being imprisoned and even executed for wearing green. Wearing of the green was symbolic of their resistance. Many were forced to flee their beloved homeland to escape death, imprisonment, oppression, and tyranny. They sought freedom in the United States, where our freedoms of speech, religion, expression, and assembly were secured by the Constitution, and where one of the purposes of government was the protection of the individual against government tyranny. The final stanza of the poem I quoted from earlier, as paraphrased, reflects the fleeing Irishmen's dreams: But if at last our colour should be torn from Ireland's heart, Her sons with shame and sorrow from the dear old isle will part; I've heard a whisper of a country that lies beyond the sea, Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom's day. O Erin, must we leave you, driven by a tyrant's hand? Must we ask a mother's blessing from a strange and distant land? Where the cruel cross of tyranny shall nevermore be seen And where, please God, we'll live and die still wearin' O' the green. Although this is an Irish poem, it underscores the love of liberty that characterizes America. Because of the bravery, determination, and the sacrifice of or forefathers, the United States stands today as a citadel of freedom and liberty in a world in which a large part of the population is still burdened by totalitarianism and oppression. The green we wear today is also to remember them, wherever they might be. The Irish have contributed so much to the history of our Nation. They have fought in our wars, they have served our communities. They have added to our enjoyment through their stories and funloving spirit, often giving light to the darkest days. They have become great Americans who still cherish and revere their Irish roots and heritage. The spiritual descendants of St. Patrick have reminded us of the true importance and value of individual rights and liberties, and have always been in the forefront of defending the rights and liberties that define this Nation. So, on this St. Patrick's Day, a day when true peace for the Emerald Isle seems to be finally in its grasp, let us remember the Irish heritage and those who struggle in the old country for freedom and liberty. Let us wear the green and remain forever mindful of all that it represents. And let us never forget that above all else, we are Americans--Americans strong and free. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, with regards to the Kassebaum amendment concerning striker replacement issues and the Executive order to which it pertains, I oppose the amendment. When this issue has arisen in the past I have supported substantial modifications to the striker replacement bill, including mandatory arbitration. These modifications would have substantially reduced strikes. Given my reservations, I have spent a good deal of time studying the Executive order. It is important to note that the provisions established by this order are much narrower in scope than striker replacement proposals made in the past and very limited in the number of businesses that would be affected. From the outset and before I go any further, let me point out that the Kassebaum amendment violates the rules of the Senate which prohibit legislating on an appropriations bill. The procedure in the Senate is to pass legislative authorization or prohibition legislation and to deal with the matter of appropriations separately. The Kassebaum amendment clearly violates these rules. Next, the underlying issue before the Senate is a supplemental defense appropriations bill. I do not think that bill ought to be jeopardized by a non-germane issue that can be brought up through the regular legislative process. In reference to the Executive order, there are two points that I think should be made. The first is that the order in question does not require that Federal contractors who permanently replace workers be barred from holding contracts with the Federal Government. The order only gives the Secretary of Labor permission to consider terminating contracts with companies who permanently fire lawfully striking employees. Even if the Secretary does decide to terminate the contractor on this basis, it takes only an objection from the head of the involved Government agency to have the contract reinstated. There is also the issue of cost to the Government and ultimately to the taxpayers. We should realize that it is expensive for companies to hire replacement workers. For a business to change employees quickly costs a great deal of money. Considering how often we have seen some companies overcharge the Government in the past, it is completely reasonable to expect that the costs of hiring these replacement workers will be passed on to the Government and ultimately the taxpayers.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to acknowledge the importance of mental health to everyone's and society's well-being and to call our attention to counseling as a vital part of maintaining good mental health. Mental health counseling is provided along a continuum of patient needs, from educational and preventive services, to diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, to long-term and acute care. It assists individuals and groups with problem-solving, personal and social development, decision-making, and self-awareness. Such counseling is offered through community mental health agencies, private practices, psychiatric hospitals, college campuses, and rehabilitation centers. It is often provided in conjunction with other mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, psychiatric nurses, and marriage and family therapists so that the most appropriate treatment for each patient is assured. It is provided by professionals with advanced degrees in counseling or related disciplines, practicing within the scope of their training and experience. They are currently licensed in 40 States and the District of Columbia. I want to congratulate the American Mental Health Counselors Association on their designation of April 30-May 6, 1995 as ``National Mental Health Counseling Week,'' and urge each and every American to seek the assistance of a qualified mental health counselor when needed. After all, our mental health is just as important as our physical health.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Glen P. Woodard, the former vice president and director of community affairs for Winn-Dixie Food Stores, died on January 25, 1995, after an extended illness. As Winn-Dixie's community affairs director, Glen was widely known by food industry leaders and politicians for his handling of legislative and regulatory activities at both the State and national levels. He moved to Florida at a young age, attending high school there and college at the University of Florida. He served in the U.S. Air Force 306 Bomb Group during World War II. Prior to joining Florida Petroleum Industries for 11 years. In 1981, he was named Groceryman of the Year by the Retail Grocers Association of Florida. At his funeral on January 28, Robert O. Aders, former president of the Food Marketing Institute, gave a warm and moving eulogy to his good friend, Glen Woodard. It captures Glen's sharp wit, down-home personality, and wonderful good-natured philosophy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this excellent tribute be printed in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it was sad to see Korbet's close. It was one of the last of a vanishing breed of mom-and-pop businesses that add so much flavor and character to a community or neighborhood. I congratulate Nick and Ethel Catranis for bringing so much dining pleasure to the Mobile area for so many years, and wish them all the best for the future. Korbet's is sorely missed. [Exhibit 1] Korbet's Restaurant, Mobile, Ala., Dec. 27, 1994. Dear Korbet's Restaurant Customer: Korbet's Restaurant has been a part of many families in the Mobile area since 1949. Mr. and Mrs. George Kordomenos started Korbet's in 1949 when they came to this location from the Victory Cafe in downtown Mobile. Their devotion to their profession, to the community and their desire to succeed Mobile. They created a Mobile tradition for what would be a family gathering place for generations: a place where people proposed marriage and returned year after year to celebrate their anniversary; a place where people celebrated, graduations, retirements and other occasions; a place where families gathered for Thanksgiving and other holidays. In return they accomplished ``the American Dream.'' They helped their relatives back in the country that they left, they educated their children and saw their grandchildren become doctors, businessmen and pharmacists. In 1963, my wife and I came into the family business and worked together with Mom and Dad. Then, in 1968, Dad, Mr. George Kordomenos, passed away and as you all know, Mother, Mrs. Katie Kordomenos, passed away last year. Managing this restaurant for 32 years has taken its toll on me, I have become too wrapped up in my work. I have missed many things in my life such as not seeing my children grow up. On January 14, 1995, Korbet's Restaurant will close its doors and will no longer serve Mobilians. This decision is not a sudden one; it has taken much contemplation, has stirred many emotions, and has been of great consideration for many months. We feel that we have served the community as best as we personally could. As we move out of the restaurant business and diversify, we feel that we will be serving our community in other ways. My belief for success has been that you have to get down in the trenches and work with your employees. That is what I have done and together, we have been successful. However, in recent years the restaurant industry has made many changes; our governing bodies have imposed many new taxes, regulations, and restrictions and so the time has come for us to move on. Turning one's back on a business such as this is hard to do. I am lucky and blessed that I'm able. My wife Ethel, my children, and I want to thank each and every one of you, our customers and fellow workers, for your loyalty throughout the years. We sincerely regret this move. We want to thank our many suppliers who have made our survival possible by providing quality products so we may serve our many customers throughout the years. To all the realtors of Mobile and the many politicians who had their business meetings here and in turn molded and reshaped the city of Mobile--they changed the borders, the subdivisions, the streets, the shopping centers--we thank them and feel that we were a part of all this, too. To the many busboys and busgirls that worked here during their school years: this being their first job in life, and where we tried to instill in them and try to teach them the importance of work in life, and where they have gone and become professionals, good citizens, and raised families. We thank them for their contribution. To the many waitresses, cooks, cashiers, and managers who worked endless, long and hard hours and have raised their families and educated their children: we thank you for your contribution. To our many loyal customers and the many that we have spoiled: nothing could have been possible without your loyalty--we will always cherish your friendship and loyal patronage. And finally, to my wife and children, whom I deprived many things for 32 years by working all day and all night often till 2:00 a.m., thank you for your support. And now Korbet's Restaurant will go down in history as other great family businesses have, such as Hays Davis Packing, Constantines Restaurant, Gulas Restaurant, Metropolitan Restaurant, Government Street Lumber, Wintzell's Restaurant and many others. On behalf of our management and staff, we want our customers to know you will be missed. And so as the world goes around, so must we. Sincerely, Nick and Ethel Catranis.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, a long-time fixture of the Mobile, AL, area, Korbet's Restaurant closed in January after serving customers-- including me and some of my staff--at the same location for 45 years. The restaurant on Airport Boulevard was a part of Mobile's Loop area beginning in 1949, when owner Nick Catranis' mother and father-in-law-- George and Katie Kordomenos--moved there from their Victory Cafe in downtown Mobile. The name for the restaurant came from the first three letters of their last name combined with the first three of a partner's name. Nick Catranis married Ethel Kordomenos and joined her family's business in 1963, managing Korbet's for the next 32 years. Nick issued a letter to his loyal customers in December giving a heartfelt description of his family's struggle against changing times and the personal sacrifice it took to keep the operation running. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. It is illustrative of the kinds of difficulties many small companies face in today's increasingly competitive business climate.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, former Jefferson County, AL, Circuit Judge William Hutchins Cole, who served 18 years on the bench, passed away on February 12, 1995, at the age of 76. Judge Cole served as county circuit criminal judge until 1988, when he reached his 70th birthday. Under Alabama's judicial article, judges must retire when they turn 70. However, they may stay on as supernumerary judges--hearing cases as needed--as Judge Cole did until 1991. During his tenure, Judge Cole presided over some of the most notorious criminal trials in Jefferson County. He was known for his sometimes stern demeanor in court. He was also known as one of the most conscientious and hard-working jurists in Alabama. Judge Cole was a native of Towson, MD, and a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law. He served as an FBI agent during World War II, beginning law practice in Birmingham in 1946 where he was a founding partner of the firm Jenkins, Cole, Callaway, & Vance. Judge William Cole was an outstanding judge who contributed much to the legal community throughout his career and will be greatly missed. I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife Susan and the rest of his family in the wake of their tremendous loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, our Senate Chaplain, Dr. Richard C. Halverson, our dear friend, is retiring today and has delivered his last official prayer. He has been a great Chaplain. During his tenure, Dr. Halverson has proved himself over and over again, not only to be a comforting spiritual guide but also a wonderful friend and adviser to workers: elevator operators, the police, the pages, the waitresses, the waiters, the electricians. Every conceivable worker has in some way or form felt his influence. His ministering support has been helpful to us immeasurably as we wrestled with difficult personal, political, and policy issues. While he is not a Catholic and I am not a Catholic, it seems to me that the Catholic Church has a title that is befitting Dr. Halverson, and that is ``Father.'' He is father of the entire Senate family and we want to wish him well. The Chaplain of the Senate is one of its 5 officers, and probably its most visible. Many people around the country watch as he opens the Senate's day with a prayer, or introduces the guest Chaplain to conduct the prayer. Dr. Halverson has been superb at arranging for guest Chaplains, thereby giving wide representation to the many diverse religious denominations in our Nation. As Chaplain, he has provided pastoral services to Members and our staffs, most of whom are far away from their own churches and ministers as well as to the entire Senate family. His soothing countenance and understanding manner have made us feel more at home here in the Senate. Beginning his service on February 2, 1981, the Reverend Dr. Richard Halverson is the 60th Senate Chaplain. A native of North Dakota, he is a graduate of Wheaton College and the Princeton Theological Seminary. He has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees by Wheaton and Gordon Colleges, and has served churches in Kansas City, MO; Coalinga and Hollywood, CA; and for 23 years at his last pastorate at the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD. Dr. Halverson has been deeply involved as an associate in the International Prayer Breakfast movement in Washington, and I have had the personal pleasure of working with him since coming to the Senate. He has been active with this prayer breakfast for almost 40 years. He has served as chairman of the board of World Vision and president of Concern Ministries. He has authored several books, including ``A Day at a Time,'' ``Be Yourself . . . and God's,'' ``Between Sundays,'' ``No Greater Power,'' and ``We the People.'' He has traveled extensively through his associations with World Vision, the prayer breakfast movement, and pastors' and leaders' conferences in Asia, Australia, South America, Africa, and Europe. Mr. President, Dick Halverson is an outstanding example of why the Senate has always had a Chaplain. He has been completely devoted to the Senate and we are grateful for his many years of service. We sincerely appreciate him, we will miss him, and we wish him and his wonderful wife, Doris, all the best as they move on to a well-deserved retirement. Dr. Halverson has left his mark on this body, and it will not be the same without him. The Senate is better for having had his guidance and wisdom for 14 years.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Jesse J. Lewis, Jr., a Birmingham, AL, advertising and public relations executive, passed away on February 26 after a tragic automobile accident. He was the president and chief executive officer of Jesse J. Lewis & Associates. His firm's clients included the State of Alabama, the city of Birmingham, the Birmingham Water Works Board, Midfield Dodge, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, and the Jefferson County Citizens' Coalition. A native of Birmingham, Jesse Lewis, Jr., was one of the first blacks to attend the prestigious Indian Springs School in Pelham. He later graduated from John Carroll High School and Miles College. In 1980, he took over the advertising firm from his father, Jesse Lewis Sr., who is publisher of the Birmingham Times newspaper, former president of Lawson State Community College, and the first black this century appointed to an Alabama Governor's cabinet; he served as director of highway traffic and safety under former Gov. George Wallace. The firm was founded in 1952, and is one of the oldest black- owned advertising and public relations companies in the country. Jesse J. Lewis & Associates received the 1994 Travel Industry of America's Marketing and Promotion Creativity Award in the broadcast/ radio category for an Alabama Bureau of Tourism commercial. Jesse, Jr. was also nominated for Business Person of the Year last year. He had a wide circle of friends crossing racial, economic, and social lines. He was extremely energetic and contributed much of his time to many civic organizations, especially those having to do with the city of Birmingham. He sat on the board of directors of the Birmingham Urban League. Jesse Lewis, Jr.'s death at such a young age leaves a great void in his community and the business world of which he was such an integral part. He had already accomplished so much professionally, and so much more was confidently expected of him. He truly enjoyed the admiration and respect of those who knew him, including his loyal clients. I extend my sincerest condolences to Jesse's parents, Jesse and Helen Lewis, and his brother James in the wake of their tremendous loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that would authorize our Nation's Federal district courts to adopt and utilize voluntary alternative dispute resolution programs. The time has come for Congress and the Federal courts to realize that there must be alternative ways of settling disputes other than the traditional methods utilizing a Federal judge and jury. With criminal cases crowding the dockets, many litigants in civil cases, especially small businesses, simply cannot get their cases heard in a timely manner. Recent statistics from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts indicate that a majority of cases in the Federal courts are civil cases and that the number of filings since 1990 has increased 9 percent. With criminal cases being put on a fast track, the time has come for Congress to assist the Federal courts in processing civil cases for the benefit of the American people. Our Federal court system is one of the best in the world, and our judges work long hours to hear cases which come before them. I believe the approach that my legislation takes will bring the Federal courts into the 21st century ahead of schedule by expressing Congress' intent that if parties want to voluntarily settle their civil disputes by such methods as court annexed arbitration, meditation, early neutral evaluation, minitrials, or summary trials, then they should be allowed to do so. I am introducing this legislation as a result of a hearing which the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice held several months ago. I was privileged to Chair this subcommittee hearing which heard testimony from a number of distinguished witnesses including Judge Anne Williams, on behalf of the U.S. Judicial Conference; Judge Bill Wilson, U.S. District Court (E.D. Arkansas); Judge William Schwarzer on behalf of the Federal Judicial Center; U.S. Magistrate Judge Wayne Brazil (N.D. California); Judge Raymond Broderick (E.D. Pennsylvania); Stuart Grossman, on behalf of the American Board of Trial Advocates; Jack Watson, on behalf of the American Bar Association; and Dianne Nast, a practicing attorney in Philadelphia. The focus of the hearing was to consider H.R. 1102, introduced by Congressman Bill Hughes of New Jersey, which would have required, not merely authorized, each of the 94 Federal district courts to adopt either a mandatory or a voluntary court-annexed arbitration program which would operate under the existing authority of Chapter 44, Sections 651-658 of Title 28 of the United States Code. H.R. 1102 would have increased the maximum amount in controversy for cases referred under the mandatory programs from $100,000 to $150,000. In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to authorize the continuation of 10 pilot programs of mandatory court-annexed arbitration that were in operation in the Federal courts, and this legislation also authorized 10 additional pilot programs that would be of a voluntary nature. This authorization was to terminate toward the end of 1993, and H.R. 1102 would have made that authorization permanent and would have required each district court to adopt either a mandatory or a voluntary program of court-annexed arbitration. Because of strong concerns raised at the hearing regarding the mandatory nature of court-annexed arbitration, our subcommittee was unwilling to immediately go forward with H.R. 1102. Instead, S. 1732, which became Public Law 103-192, was introduced toward the end of 1993, which simply extended the existing authority for one year with regard to the 20 pilot districts utilizing court-annexed arbitration. In early August last year, I, along with my colleagues Senators Biden, Hatch, Grassley, and Specter, introduced S. 2407, the Judicial Amendments Act of 1994, to extend this authority for an additional 3 years until the end of 1997. S. 2407 was introduced and passed by the Senate on August 19, and sent to the House of Representatives which also passed it at the close of session. It was signed by the President on October 25, 1994, and became Public Law 103-420. Let me return now to the hearing which the subcommittee held in October 1993 and which focused primarily on arbitration which is one of the programs of ADR as alternative dispute resolution is popularly called. Judge Ann Claire Williams of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois appeared on behalf of the U.S. Judicial Conference which is the policymaking body of the Federal judiciary. The Judicial Conference has recommended that Congress should authorize all Federal district courts to have the discretion to utilize voluntary nonbinding court-annexed arbitration. Thus, the judicial Conference did not recommend the expansion of mandatory court-annexed arbitration for the remainder of the Federal district courts. The legislation which I am introducing today builds on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference by authorizing each of the 94 Federal district courts to adopt not only voluntary court-annexed arbitration but also other ADR programs, including but not limited to mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrials, summary jury or bench trials. My legislation also contains a provision that clearly states that ``[a]n alternative dispute resolution program shall not in any way infringe on a litigant's right to trial de novo and shall impose no penalty on participating litigants.'' Over the last year, I have talked with many people from both the bar and the business community, and I believe that it is an undeniable fact that civil litigation in the Federal courts has become more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive. Further, the Speedy Trial Act, requiring criminal cases to proceed on a fast track, has resulted in delays in civil cases being considered by the Federal courts. I want to make certain that the Congress clearly intends for our Federal courts to consider alternative means of dispute resolution, so that litigants can have a speedy and less expensive alternative to formal civil adjudication, consistent with the requirements of the seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Where parties are willing there are merits that justify our support for such programs. I hope that this legislation will be carefully considered by my colleagues, and I look forward to further discussion on its merits in the days ahead.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Aquaculture Research Center Act of 1995. The first major provision within my legislation transfers responsibility for the aquaculture research program from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture. This transfer simply recognizes the reality that the vast majority of aquaculture research and funding comes through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is a long-overdue streamlining measure that will greatly improve the overall efficiency and timeliness of aquaculture research. The second provision stipulates that the Southeastern Fish Culture Laboratory in Marion, AL be named and designated as the ``Claude Harris National Aquaculture Research Center.'' Many of my colleagues remember former Congressman Claude Harris, who passed away last fall after a battle with lung cancer. He spent 6 years in the House of Representatives from the Seventh District of Alabama, and was an outstanding Member of Congress. At the time of his death, he was serving as the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama. He was honest and amiable and never took his political accomplishments for granted. During his time in Congress, Claude Harris was a strong supporter of aquaculture research, and was instrumental in promoting it through his hard work on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The fish culture laboratory in Marion is located in Claude's former district. This designation will serve as a proper and fitting tribute to the memory of Congressman Claude Harris, whose drive, determination, and energy did so much to advance the important science of aquaculture in this country.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of legislation entitled ``the Reorganization of the Federal Administrative Judiciary Act.'' I am pleased to advise that I have been joined today by nine colleagues from both sides of the aisle and who are original cosponsors of this reform legislation. They are Senators Specter, Ford, Thurmond, Bumpers, Brown, Simon, Shelby, Moseley-Braun, and Cohen. The purpose of this legislation is to reorganize and establish an independent corps of administrative law judges within the executive branch of Government. The bill is designed to address two critical issues which face our Nation. First, an independent corps is vital to the continued impartial resolution of issues and decision of cases arising under the administrative procedure act. Second, this bill streamlines the Federal bureaucracy in order to better meet the needs of the people of the United States. For these reasons, legislation needs to be adopted to improve this Nation's administrative system of justice. In the 103d Congress, I introduced similar legislation, and on September 15, 1993, the Judiciary Committee considered this legislation, and ordered it favorably reported in the nature of a substitute to the Senate. On November 19, 1993, this bill was considered on the floor of the Senate and adopted a technical amendment which I offered and two valuable amendments offered by my colleagues Senator Hank Brown of Colorado and Senator William Cohen of Maine. The legislation I am introducing today is identical to the legislation which unanimously passed the Senate on November 19, 1993. While the House of Representatives regretfully failed to consider S. 486 during the second session of the 103d Congress, I am hopeful, in light of the recent election results by which the American people expressed their support for leaner, more efficient, and less costly Federal Government, that the new Congress will favorably consider and adopt this legislation and send it to President Clinton for signature. the primary objective of this legislation is to reorganize the Federal administrative judiciary to promote efficiency, productivity, and the reduction of overhead functions. It will provide for economies of scale to better serve the public in the resolution of administrative disputes. This goal will be accomplished by placing all ALJ's in a unified corps with a chief judge as the primary administrative officer. The chief judge will be responsible for developing programs and practices, which attain this objective. Those programs and practices will include the training of judges in more than one subject area. This training will permit the utilization of the skills and expertise of each judge across agency lines to meet the demands of the existing workload. Generally, this bill would establish an independent corps for administrative law judges which would operate under the executive branch of the Government. The corps would be governed by a chief administrative law judge. Further, the corps would be divided into eight divisions, with each division governed by a division chief administrative law judge. The chief and division chief ALJ's would be Presidential appointments, by and with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The chief and division chief ALJ's would form a council. The council would be the policy making body for assign judges to divisions, appoint persons as administrative law judges, prescribe rules of practice and procedure for the corps, issue appropriate rules and regulations for the efficient conduct of the corps, and generally manage the day-to-day operations of the corps. This bill provides explicit protection for ALJ's. The corps would continue to make appointments of administrative law judges from a register of qualified candidates maintained by the Office of Personnel Management. In order for an ALJ to be involuntarily reassigned to a new permanent duty station, an ALJ must receive a written explanation from the council stating that such a move is required in order to meet substantial changes in workloads. ALJ's would continue to hear and adjudicate the same types of cases which they presently decide. Further, ALJ's would continue to be assigned cases within their division on a rotating basis, taking into account issues of expertise and education. In addition, ALJ's would be given explicit authority to continue to act as special masters pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a). This bill also contains provisions for the removal and discipline of administrative law judges. In the committee report (103-154) to this legislation, my colleague, Senator Cohen. expressed support for the concept of establishing an independent corps of administrative law judges within the executive branch of Government and for the concept which would reform and streamline the Federal bureaucracy in order to serve the American public. Senator Cohen did have legitimate concerns and offered excellent suggestions to improve and strengthen section 599(e) of the bill relating to removal and discipline of judges. I have worked with Senator Cohen to strengthen and improve the removal and discipline provisions of the bill, and I believe these provisions are a balanced effort to make the provisions fairer to all interest parties concerned by insuring public members serve on the complaint resolution board--and its panels--to ensure objectivity and impartiality. This legislation is better because of Senator Cohen's participation and I greatly appreciate his cooperation. This legislation will promote good government in an efficient and effective manner. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has prepared a report which estimates the legislation can save as much as $22 million a year in as few as 5 years. These are the types of savings the American people expect and deserve. Since the reorganization of the Federal administrative law judges into a unified corps is expected to save the U.S. taxpayer substantial dollars, and in consultation with Senator Hank Brown of Colorado, a provision offered by Senator Brown is included in this legislation ensuring that agencies will reduce their budgets to reflect the projected savings from the removal of ALJ's from their agencies and report to Congress on their efforts. The establishment of a unified corps of administrative law judges is not a unique concept. In fact, this type of legislation was first implemented in a number of States, and has been very successful. The individual States have been leaders in adapting and streamlining the administrative process to meet the changing needs of the American public. The adoption of similar Federal legislation merely builds upon the successful experiences of the States. A final consideration which argues in favor of independence for ALJ's is the issue of public perception. For individuals who face the daunting prospect of being accused by a Federal agency of illegal activities, the fact that an administrative law judge who is an employee of that agency is hearing their case is hardly reassuring. The realities of the everyday world indicate that the key to public satisfaction and confidence in judicial decisionmaking is the issue of decisional independence. The creation of a unified corps of administrative law judges is likely to have the beneficial effect of greater public satisfaction with the administrative law system. This legislation which I introduce today responds to concerns expressed by executive branch agencies, particularly the Department of Justice. This legislation is truly a reorganization of Federal administrative adjudication functions and not a radical departure from the principles of administrative law, which has concerned some members in the past. To the contrary, the substitute insures that the rule of law will prevail in administrative adjudications without impermissible influence. The legislation specifically states that an agency's policymaking authority will not be changed nor will the administrative law judge's adjudicatory authority. The reorganization preserves the existing powers of both agency managers and the administrative law judges, while removing the tension that naturally arises between those two functions. The bill provides that enactment of the bill will effect no change in an agency's rulemaking, interpretative or policymaking authority in carrying out statutory responsibilities vested in the agency or agency head. The bill clarifies that the reorganization of administrative law judges in a corps will give the new corps no policymaking authority for the agency, a past concern expressed by some members. In preserving the status quo of the present administrative system, the agency and its head retain the authority to review decisions of administrative law judges under any applicable provision of law. The policymaking role of ALJ's is not enlarged by enactment of the bill nor is their adjudicatory authority changed from current status. An agency head or secretary retains final authority to reverse ALJ decisions as provided by statute and makes the final decisions for the agency. I look forward to working for passage of this reform legislation here in the Senate, and I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will likewise favorably consider and act on it, so that President Clinton can sign it into law before the end of the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill in its entirety be printed in the Record.