Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on March 16, a community committee will hold a special event to recognize the many contributions and hard work of Madison County, AL District One Commissioner Tillman Hill. Proceeds from this most-deserved event honoring an outstanding public servant will go to the Hazel Green Public Library Building Fund. Commissioner Hill opened this library at its temporary location in 1991. The library is Tillman Hill's pride and joy, and it is entirely fitting and appropriate for his community to thank him by raising funds for the facility he has supported and been instrumental in establishing. He has always remembered his roots and has never forgotten his people's needs. Today, the Hazel Green Library checks out more books than any other rural branch in Madison County--over 40,000 volumes in 1994. Tillman's dream is to build a permanent building for the library on 2 acres of donated land. Plans for a 4,500 square foot facility have already been prepared. Tillman Hill has dedicated his life to serving his community. He is a native son of Madison County, AL, born there, and having attended high school and college there. During the Korean war he was a noncommissioned officer with the 151st Engineering Battalion. Over the years, he has been a member of the Alabama Housing Authority; the Chamber of Commerce; the Jaycees; and the Lions Club. He is a past president of the Alabama Association of Counties. Tillman is best known as a veteran county commissioner. He was first elected in 1976 and has served as a commissioner for 19 years. His quest to bring about a county building inspection function is only the most recent of as a public official. Throughout his career, he has been the driving force behind many other special projects, including the Sharon Johnston Park; Chase Industrial Park; an expanded county water system; senior citizen and nutrition centers; low-interest housing loans; the restoration of historic cemeteries; and, of course, the Hazel Green Public Library. Since being appointed a Madison County license inspector by Alabama Governor Albert Brewer in 1969, Tillman Hill has been living proof that one individual's concern and commitment can make a tremendous and lasting difference in people's lives. I am proud to commend and congratulate my good friend Tillman Hill for his many years of service--service which reflects great credit upon him, his community, and his State. The success of the Hazel Green Library will long serve as only one testament to his selfless determination and generosity. He truly embodies the very best of what public service is all about.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I rise today with much sorrow to lament the passing of my great friend Bill Gardiner, who passed away on February 21, 1995 at the age of 68. William F. Gardiner, Sr., was my chief of staff in charge of my Alabama offices. The U.S. Marine Corps has as its motto the latin words ``Semper Fidelis,'' which mean ``Always Faithful.'' These words are descriptive and indicative of the spirit and life of Bill Gardiner. He was always faithful to his principles and to his friends. He also possessed the unfailing values of hard work, patriotism, and spirituality. He loved politics. He relished being in the political arena as much as anyone I have ever known. He enjoyed the bonding that brings people with common likes, dislikes, feelings, philosophies, and goals together. He thrived on the excitement of politics. He especially delighted in political gatherings. On many occasions, he would stay up all night cooking meat for a barbecue or some other event where politicians would gather. He believed politics and public service were ways to bring about improvements in the quality of life of all people; a way to increase the standards of living for our citizens; a means of rectifying wrongs and injustices; and a way of improving the future for generations that would follow. These principles were his guideposts in his own public service. As mayor of the city of Tuscumbia, AL he took a leadership role in improving its educational system. He used Federal money and programs to benefit the citizens of his community in many different ways, such as substituting decent and good housing for shacks in blighted areas and providing homes for the elderly. He expanded and improve the infrastructure of the city. Every municipal service, including police protection and fire-fighting, improved under his leadership. He loved to be kidded about ``Gardiner's Lake.'' A short time after he became mayor, a body of water was named for him. For generation after generation in Tuscumbia, every time a big rain came, a deep dip in Cave Street near the football stadium would become flooded with water that made traffic impassable for several days. Many of his friends kidded him about this body of water and jokingly named it ``Gardiner's Lake.'' He vowed to eliminate this, and he soon did with superb drainage engineering. He made many other vast improvements to his city during his years as mayor. He made mistakes like all of us do. At one point, he was persuaded to carry out an urban renewal program in the center of the city. Parking was substantially reduced, water fountains and pools were established, and a beautification project was created with a fish pond and series of flag poles at the Palace drugstore corner. Some wag soon labeled this project ``Three Flags loss of parking, the program was soon abandoned. Bill wasn't alone, however, because many mayors had the same unpleasant experience with urban renewal projects. His year and a half as president of the Alabama League of Municipalities was a period he really cherished. He had sincere affection for mayors and councilmen from all over the State and they loved him in return. When he become my chief of staff, he renewed his closeness with the Alabama League of Municipalities and would come to Washington with Municipal groups for conferences with the National League of Cities. He was always in attendance at the State conventions of the Alabama League of Municipalities. Bill and I went through many campaigns together. He was my campaign manager in my election for chief justice and my three elections for U.S. Senate. No one could ever hope to have a greater friend. In the words of the 66th Psalm, ``We went through fire and through water.'' He was like a brother to me. His service as my chief of staff was superb. He was my eyes and ears in Alabama. I will indeed miss his outstanding judgment and motivation. Bill spent approximately 35 years in public service, either as a public official or as my chief of staff. He loved his friends and was always loyal to them. We know that loyal people themselves inspire loyalty among others, and Bill leaves behind many who were loyal to him. A great many of them were present at his funeral on February 23, 1995 at the First United Methodist Church in Tuscumbia. Those who attended, as well as many others who could not, were a testament to the kind of man that he was and to the kind of persons which he surrounded himself and depended on. At the visitation the night before the funeral thousands of people came to the funeral home to express their affection to his family and pay their respects to him. People were lined up for blocks to get into the funeral home. Members of my staff who were there told me they waited in line for 2 hours in order to speak to his family. In the line were people from every walk of life, including farmers, garbage truck drivers, street cleaners, policemen, bankers, and government officials. He was a fine family man. He loved to attend family reunions. He would tell me well in advance of a family reunion, ``Now mark that period down because I will be gone.'' He would gather at family reunions with members of his family who had grown up in Farley, AL and reflect upon their younger days, imparting to the younger members of the family a spirit of unity and a desire to be of help to everyone. He was completely devoted to his wonderful wife Betsy and their children, and he always put them first and foremost in his thoughts. Betsy's understanding always helped Bill in so many ways. She seemed to always know the right thing to say and do at the right time. She knew how to bring out the best in him. I firmly believe that his wonderful trait of loyalty was reinforced by her own loyalty to him. As his grandchildren grow and learn more about their ``Big Daddy,'' they will be very proud of him. At his funeral, as we said goodbye to Bill Gardiner, many of us were wondering silently how we would get along without him. We will really never find anyone to take his place. But we must persevere and be guided by his spirit of being always faithful. After all, that funeral was just as much a celebration of the life of a wonderful friend and family man who was an inspiration to all who knew him. We are all better because Bill Gardiner came our way.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I again come to the floor as an original cosponsor of the resolution calling for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I do so with the firm belief that this measure, and the amendment it would help establish, is the very best hope we have now or in the near future of finally getting a handle on our massive budget debt and yearly deficits. Just as we did in the summer of 1993 by passing the largest deficit- reduction legislation in history, we again stand at a unique place and time in history with regard to addressing our most pressing structural economic problems. The American public, through countless opinion surveys, consistently ranks deficit reduction as one of its paramount concerns. What we did in August 1993 was the right thing to do, and we are seeing benefits from that legislation. Deficits are coming down for the 3d year in a row. But as we know all too well, that is nowhere near enough. The temptation to spend is still a mighty one to resist for Congress, regardless of who is in control. I believe in the inherent good sense of the American people, and I believe that good sense has opened millions of eyes and even hearts to the fact that America has been victimized by more than a dozen years of borrow-and-spend Federal fiscal policies that have run up a horrendous $4 trillion national debt. The public is saying, ``enough is enough. This irresponsibility must stop.'' There is a sense of urgency for protecting the future of our children and grandchildren. The question is whether we will act further with an even more bold step to not only reduce the deficit, but to eventually wipe it out completely. If we don't seize this opportunity--the best chance we've ever had to pass the balanced budget amendment--we might not get another opportunity any time soon. We must act to complete what the House has started. Unfortunately, our viable alternatives are few. We must finally begin to service and reduce our debt or our Nation will face the miserable consequences of bankruptcy. We are deeply and sincerely committed to doing something about deficit reduction. The American people, by all accounts, are prepared to do their part. This is one of the few times in my more than 16 years in the Senate that I have seen such an array of forces converged in an attempt to address this pervasive problem. Indeed, it is rare that we ever have a committed public and majority of Congress aligned on any economic issue, much less one that strikes at the very soul of our free republic. But we need more than just a simple majority. We must get 67 votes to ratify what the House has already passed overwhelmingly. The bottom line is this: We have the momentum to take bold and decisive action to begin reducing it. It is an opportunity to build on what we started 2 years ago. I am fearful that if we do not act this time and finally send this amendment to the States for ratification, we will lose that momentum, perhaps never to regain it. And so, we can continue to wring our hands and play the blame game, or we can act. There is plenty of blame to go around, in both branches of Government and both parties, for how we came to this point. But the time has come for the blame to end and for us, as a body, to accept responsibility. Winston Churchill once said, ``If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find we have lost the future.'' We can argue forever about what might have been done in the past to avoid the debt we face. We do not have the luxury of replaying the past, but we do have the present. And the quarreling of the present will only impact our future security. Let us heed Churchill's warning and cast a vote for the future. I implore all of my colleagues to stop the blame game and wringing of hands and vote for a new beginning with this resolution calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Let us give it to the States, where it will be fully debated, analyzed, and voted on. This is as it should be, because amending the Constitution is gravely serious business. This is why the process is so difficult. But the States should have the opportunity to decide this issue. Support this historic effort at debt reduction by stepping up to the plate and accepting responsibility. It is what we have been elected to do. The economic future of our Nation depends on us fulfilling that responsibility. amendment no. 300, as modified

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, since communication is crucial to acting in any emergency, the familiar 911 emergency telephone system has been recognized throughout the country as a key factor in fire, police, medical, and rescue personnel being able to respond quickly. Often, there are only a few precious minutes separating life and death. In many cases, quick action means life. Back on February 16, 1968, a historic first test call of the 911 system was made to a red telephone located at the Haleyville, AL, police dispatch office, a call that marked the beginning of a service that has helped save lives and protect property for 27 years. The call was answered by Congressman Tom Bevill. The town's 911 system has been in continuous service ever since, longer than anywhere else in the Nation. Haleyville's telephone switching wiring, which required little modification in order to accommodate 911, was the main reason it worked here first. Haleyville is located in Winston County, in the northwest corner of Alabama. Alabamians are justifiably proud of the contribution they have made to public safety, and the resolution I introduced commends Haleyville for its unique place in the history of the 911 service that we often take for granted today. I thank my colleagues for their support of this resolution.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to remind Americans of one of the costliest battles of World War II, and the sacrifices made by the men of the United States Marine Corps. This Sunday will be the 50th anniversary of the Marine Corps landing on Iwo Jima, a place where, as Admiral Nimitz said ``Uncommon valor was a common virtue.'' After 36 days of fighting and at a cost of 6,821 Americans killed and 19,217 wounded, the island was captured. The cost to the Japanese defenders was over 22,000 lives. Only about 1,000 Japanese survived the battle. The Japanese had long prepared for the February 19, 1945, invasion. After the battle was over, it was revealed that the enemy had constructed 642 blockhouses, pillboxes, and other gun positions. The marines landing on Iwo Jima were certainly stepping into the very jaws of the enemy--and I might say, the very jaws of hell. At 9 o'clock in the morning, the massive assault wave of the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions hit the beach at Iwo Jima. A Japanese observer watching the drama unfold from a cave on the slopes of Mount Suribachi reported: ``At 9 in the morning, several hundred landing crafts with amphibious tanks in the lead rushed ashore like an enormous tidal wave.'' Within minutes, 6,000 marines were ashore, and initial casualties were lighter than expected. Then the pounding started as the Japanese commander unleashed hundreds of heavy artillery pieces, giant mortars, rockets, and antitank weapons that had been carefully arranged around the landing beaches now clogged with troops and materials. The ensuing bombardment was as deadly and terrifying as the marines had ever experienced. Casualties mounted appallingly on what would become the costliest single day in the U.S. Marine Corps history. By the day's end, nearly 2,500 Marines were killed or wounded. Typical of the marine heroism and sacrifice of that first day on Iwo Jima, and not unlike what I had witnessed while serving in the Marine Corps with the 9th Regiment in the Pacific, were the actions of legendary Marine Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone. ``Manila John,'' as he was fondly called by his fellow marines, had been awarded the outstanding heroism at Guadalcanal. On Iwo Jima, Basilone single- handedly destroyed a Japanese blockhouse while braving the deadly assault of enemy heavy caliber fire. For his exploits he was posthumously awarded the Navy cross. The battle for Iwo Jima raged for 36 long days, and on many days the advances of the American forces could be measured in yards. Though I was not there because I was recovering from a wound I received during the battle of Guam, my outfit, the 3rd Division, served as the floating reserve for this battle. Entering the fray on February 21, when the fighting was at its worst, the soldiers of the 3rd Marine Division were tasked with clearing the central plateau of the island. This area held many prepared enemy defensive positions, but very little cover for the advancing Marines. By the time the plateau was taken, the regimental casualties exceeded 50 percent. Some companies suffered casualty rates in excess of 200 percent, including my old company, A Company, of the 9th Regiment. Considering the magnitude of these casualties, one may wonder what drove these men to carry on. From my own experience, I would say these men drew their strength from the support of their fellow marines, an esprit de corps that is unique in military history, and the knowledge that taking this island was important to the war effort. Most important, however, they fought because they knew they had to fight. They had to take that hill, that they had to take that island. The Commander in Chief had said it, and these men knew it in their hearts, victory was the only way home. On March 26, 1945, finally, the Japanese were defeated and the island was ours. On Sunday, the 50th anniversary of the landing on Iwo Jima, approximately 5,000 survivors of the battle will gather at the Iwo Jima Memorial here in Washington to remember and to pay reverence to those who gave their lives. Mount Suribachi, and the flag raising on that mount, stands as a symbol of the courage of the U.S. Marine Corps. Mount Suribachi was 556 feet high. It bristled with over 200 guns, and 21 blockhouses. It had to be taken, because it was delivering devastating fire on the beaches and to the marines that were below. The marines assigned were willing to risk their lives for the sake of their comrades and their country. So, through personal courage and esprit de corps, on February 23 the Japanese defending Mount Suribachi were overcome and the Stars and Stripes were raised. And as the flag was raised on that mount, it gave additional strength to the marines below to move forward, on to victory. We salute the survivors of Iwo Jima and wish them well as they commemorate that very important battle of World War II.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I ask the minority leader if he will yield me about 6 minutes of time to speak on the Iwo Jima anniversary.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am in the process of preparing remarks, and have worked on them today, dealing with the Battle of Iwo Jima. I have some remarks that were prepared to deliver tomorrow, probably in morning business. But I am moved by the eloquence of Senator Bumpers. It brought back to me a lot of personal feelings that were heightened by his remarks. My division, the 3rd division, was in reserve in the landing on Iwo Jima. The 4th and the 5th Marine Divisions landed on D-Day, and they moved inland basically uncontested for awhile. But then the Japanese guns came forth from their pill boxes and from their fortifications that they had worked on for months and months, and complete devastation took place on the beaches of Iwo Jima. It was decided that the 3rd Marine Division, which was being held in reserve, would be committed, and the 3rd division was committed. I had been a member of A company, 1st battalion, 9th Marines. That is 9th regiment in Bougainville and Guam. I was wounded in Guam and came back to the United States, and was in a hospital on the day of D-Day that they landed. I later talked to the survivors of A company. They told me that A company, 1st battalion, 9th Marines, 3d Marine Division, suffered more than 200 percent casualties on Iwo Jima. They sent in replacements at various stages before the island was finally captured. I lost many a friend in that battle. The raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi is symbolic of the battle in the Pacific, where we really, by great military strategy, went through a campaign of island hopping, by which they would select an island that was in a very strategic position and bypass most of the well-fortified islands that the Japanese thought we would be attacking first. This island-hopping strategy reduced the casualties tremendously. But Iwo Jima lay in a position 660 miles off of the coast of Japan. The Japanese had built two airstrips and were in the process of building a third airstrip, primarily to place on that island. Most of their fighter pilot planes were left with the idea of intercepting our bombers as they came through from Guam, or Tinian, or Saipan to Japan. As Senator Bumpers and Senator Chafee have pointed out, the planes that came back, many of them damaged by antiaircraft and fighter pilots of the Japanese, landed in an emergency on land. But it also was very important in our victory against the Japanese in that it destroyed a potential fighter pilot baseline that could have caused tremendous problems relative to that.But I look back in memory of my friends that I lost, and I would have been on Iwo Jima with my outfit if I had not been back in the United States at that particular time. The words that stick in my mind are the words of Admiral Nimitz following the Battle of Iwo Jima when he said: ``Uncommon valor was a common virtue.'' The marines that participated in that, and the Navy that was involved, and the Air Force, everybody concerned, really were great heroes, and we will be honoring the 50th commemoration of that battle in the near future. I believe Sunday there is a ceremony at the Iwo Jima monument. So I pay tribute to those that lost their lives, to those that were wounded, and to those that helped in that very important battle to bring about V-J Day. Iwo Jima

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I was unaware that this motion would be made. It caught me by surprise. I would like to go into great detail, and I did not know that there would be a time limitation until it had already occurred in regard to it. I would like to go into detail, which I will later, hoping that this is defeated and then we would have an opportunity to explain the history and the background and the reason why the TVA is a self-operating agency of the Government and, therefore, because of its uniqueness, different than any other agency or body, should be exempt in the balanced budget amendment. This involves the electrical power program of the TVA, just the electrical power program. Certainly, the electrical power program of the TVA ought to be paid by the power users, by the ratepayers and not by the Government. And the intention of this report language is to guarantee and ensure that the Government does not have to pay for the electrical power system of the Tennessee Valley Authority. That is the purpose it was put in there. They have variances that occur all the time, and they have to act immediately. They may have a tornado, they may have a downed situation pertaining to the transmission of electrical current and they may have to move. They may have to spend money immediately relative to those matters. The ratepayers ought to be the ones to pay for it. That is the reason it was put in there. It was put in there for the protection of the taxpayers of the United States. It is put in there to protect the taxpayers so they do not have to pay for the electricity rates of the people in Tennessee and Alabama and Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and the other places. We have a limited time. Senator Ford, as I understand it, wants to make some remarks. I yield to him at this time.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as I mentioned before in my opening argument, I reiterate it because it has not been answered: Really, the purpose of this is to protect the taxpayers. It is to say, and to have in report language--it is not in the language of the constitutional amendment, but in the report language--its purpose is to protect the taxpayers from where the taxpayers might have to pay or subsidize the power program of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It is put there with the idea of protecting the taxpayers, and that is what it has been. The TVA program has been that the entire power program shall not be subject to appropriations and it is not subject to other types of revenues that come in. The revenues that operate in regard to this are strictly the ratepayers'. They get a bill. The ratepayers get a bill just like every other utility user gets a bill, and they pay it every month. Those revenues do not go into the Treasury of the United States. It is there for the protection of the taxpayers. It is report language and it is different from the language that is in the constitutional amendment. It is not mentioned in there. It is just report language to give some guidance, to show that the taxpayers are not to have to pay in regard to the rates of the utility users.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to congratulate the League of Women Voters as it turns 75 years old today. Many congratulations are certainly in order for this outstanding organization that has done so much over the decades as ``a voice of citizens and a force for change.'' The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political group which encourage the informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of public policy issues, and influences policy through education and advocacy. Every American has benefited from the league's many contributions at the local, State, and national levels of government during its 75 years. In 1976, the league sponsored the first Presidential debates since those famous ones in 1960. This capped a nationwide petition drive to have candidates for Nation's highest office ``Meet in public debate on the issues facing the country.'' The league also sponsored debates during the general election campaigns of 1980 and 1984, and during the primaries of 1988 and 1992. Most of us know the league through our local chapters, since it is organized in more than 1,000 communities, in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Its education fund, founded in 1957, provides local and State leagues with information and educational services on elections and on current public policy issues. It is renowned for its ability to make complex and controversial issues accessible to the average citizen in a clear and balanced way. There is no more important civic duty we have as Americans than expressing ourselves through informed, consistent voting. I am proud to commend and congratulate the League of Women Voters for helping to foster that civic expression for 75 years. commemorating the 75th anniversary of the league of women voters

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Certainly.

Mr. HEFLIN. Yes, I would appreciate some time.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the resolution calling for a balanced budget amendment. I think it is long overdue. It provides the discipline that is absolutely essential if we are going to balance the budget and eliminate deficit spending. However, I do feel in a balanced budget resolution we ought to provide for the absolute truth as it would apply to deficit spending, at least to the extent of having Social Security off budget and not a part of the overall budget. When Social Security was created in 1935, it was created as a trust fund to be held separate and apart from the general operating budget of the Government. That was true up until 1969, when it was used to, really, hide the true deficits that were occurring as a result of the Vietnam war and some other matters that called for the expenditure of funds. In 1990, we attempted to take Social Security off budget and have truth in the budget. That was the intent but, have it today. The amendment calling for a balanced budget would mean that we would have Social Security funds included in the budget process for the general operating budget, and this causes me concern. I have looked at figures of projections which the Social Security Administration has worked up relative to the amount of excess of receipts over outlays, or surpluses, that are occurring. In 1995, which is the present fiscal year we are in, the Social Security trust fund will have a surplus of $69 billion; in 1996, $73 billion; 1997, $78 billion; 1998, $84 billion; 1999, $90 billion. In the year 2000, $96 billion. I do not have the figures, but as I understand it, they continue to grow and we will say, by the year 2001, it is in excess of $100 billion. The present projected deficits, according to the President's budget and otherwise, indicate that at around the year 2001 we will have deficit spending around $200 billion. According to the Social Security Administration, the surplus in the Social Security trust fund in the year 2001 will be $951.8 billion. What happens to that surplus? The surplus is invested with the idea of drawing interest in order that that interest can compound the assets each fiscal year to make it grow. We hear the term that it is designed to make it more actuarially sound. So you have interest that is then growing, and in the year 2001, according to the Social Security Administration, they anticipate--and it is based on factors based largely on interest rates today--that the Social Security trust fund will yield about $63.3 billion in interest in the year 2001. So we have coming in $100 billion and $58 billion from interest, making approximately a total of $158 billion that will be coming available as surplus interest and surplus payments in the year 2001. The year 2001 is the year before 2002, which is the target date for balancing the budget. So you say if Social Security is a part of the budget, then in the year 2001, we will find--the projections on the deficit spending as of that year would be $200 billion--if you allocate toward the reduction of the deficit $158 billion, coming from principal that comes in to be paid plus $58 billion that would be drawn on interest on the surplus, it would leave $42 billion that you would have to cut in programs. It seems to me that if you were at the stage of that and you were attempting to balance the budget and to bring about a reduction of spending in unwise programs, you would not want to be in that position. But under the language here, under the definition of total receipts, the total receipts include all receipts of the Government except those that are obtained or derived from borrowing. So, therefore, it is mandatory that at least $100 billion of the principal has to be included on the receipts side relative to the balancing of the budget. This matter of attributable interest causes me concern. The definition of total receipts shall include all receipts of the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing. Therefore, when the Social Security surplus, nearly $1 trillion in the year 2001, has been invested and you bring in the money that has been obtained from borrowing, it means, therefore, that the interest, the attributable interest, is not included. One would think it would be included from the borrowing. But when it comes to the outlays, it is excepted because of the fact that you cannot allow under the definition of outlays to pay back interest under the concept of the budget. So, therefore, you are in a situation where the total receipts shall include all receipts of the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing. That means you include all receipts that the Social Security tax pays, and it is required that you have to do it. The money that is invested by Social Security funds can be paid back, and they will be paid back, because it says total outlays shall include all outlays of the U.S. Government except those for the repayment of debt principal--debt principal--but it does not guarantee necessarily that the interest will be included in the budget. Therefore, it puts it into a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not the interest will be repaid. But the debt principal, of course, is not included in the outlays and, therefore, you have a problem that arises in connection with that. I think that we ought to at least, if the Reid amendment is defeated, address the question of debt interest that is coming in regard to the Social Security Administration. This is sort of a complicated concept. But it ought to be that attributable interest is also kept off budget, and that we do not have to depend on the payment of interest to come from actual outlays that are appropriated under the general budget because it is a temptation. And it may well be that they will be repaid. But there is no guarantee that the debt principal interest, the interest that is grown, will be repaid relative to that matter. I think there are a lot of things pertaining to the Social Security amendment of Senator Reid that are very important. I think it is one of the most consequential votes of this young session of Congress that we have had. I want to rise to voice my strong support for Senator Reid's amendment exempting Social Security receipts and outlays from the budget. Social Security is the Federal Government's original contract with America. I believe Senator Reid used that word in one of his speeches. If the Reid amendment does not pass, then we will be breaking that contract, and we will ultimately be forced to balance the budget on the backs of hardworking Americans who have contributed toward their retirement with a portion of each paycheck. This provision says it is a protection for all Americans who pay into the program. There is no question that, under the language in the balanced budget amendment resolution now pending, the Social Security trust fund will no longer be completely safe for future generations. The Reid amendment seeks to correct the deficient language so as to uphold the original contract with America, one that has lived up to its intent like few other Government contracts have. The amendment is very simple. It protects the Social Security Program by excluding the receipts and the outlays in the system from the budget. Social Security is not causing the deficit. Its revenues and surpluses should not be used to mask the receipts, nor should its outlays be counted as part of expenditures. We should keep in mind that Social Security is a program self-financed from contributions by employers and employees, which does not contribute one cent to the deficit. In fact, in 1990, Congress included a provision in the Budget Enforcement Act declaring that funds off budget, much like our personal savings accounts, are not counted towards the budget. The current underlying resolution, if not amended, would clearly put Social Security on budget, and thus overturn the decision 5 years ago to affirm the off-budget status of Social Security. As we debate and develop the balanced budget amendment, we need to be certain that we protect the integrity of the Social Security System and maintain truth in budgeting. The protection of this self-funded program can only be accomplished by keeping it off budget and out of the balanced budget equation. This vote should be easy. The bottom line is that we are voting on whether or not to protect the true contract with America, Social Security. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of protecting the terms of this sacred contract and covenant, and keep Social Security in its protected position as a trust fund separate and distinct from the Federal budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to the resolution offered by Senator Reid which would protect the Social Security system. I am a cosponsor of the amendment to balance the budget and a strong believer in it. But I feel the Social Security program is such that it ought to be off budget and that we ought to have truth in regard to budgeting. I am a cosponsor of the Reid amendment, which is designed to ensure that the budget is not balanced on the backs of hard-working Americans who have contributed toward their retirement with a portion of each paycheck. This is not only a protection for retirees but also a protection for all Americans who pay into the program. The amendment is simple. It protects the Social Security system by excluding the receipts and the outlays of the Social Security program from the budget. The present system of collecting FICA payments from employees' paychecks, as well as a matching contribution from employers, is used to fund a Social Security trust fund. Currently, the payments to the Social Security recipients out of this trust fund are less than the amount taken in through the FICA payments. This surplus in contributions to the fund was created by Congress in the early 1980's to account for the increase in the payout which will occur in the future as the baby boomers begin to retire and draw upon Social Security, and was also done for the purpose of making the Social Security system at that particular time stable, and to try to make it actuarially sound for a great number of years. We can liken the Social Security trust fund to the traditional savings account most Americans have in the bank. By putting a little money into a savings account each month, and forgetting it is there, it will eventually build up and become substantial by the time it is needed. We do not include the savings account in our monthly operating budget in our checking account, which is used to pay monthly bills and expenses. As I read it, under the language in the balanced budget resolution now pending here in the Senate, this Social Security savings account would no longer be completely safe to build up the surplus which will be needed to pay retiring baby boomers in the 21st century. Next, I will turn to what are potential problems, which may arise under the current language of the balanced budget resolution. If at some time the payments to Social Security beneficiaries should be greater than the receipts from the FICA tax revenues, a deficit would occur. According to figures supplied by the Social Security Administration this should occur starting in the year 2013. At this point it is not clear what effect this deficit would have on Social Security payments. As part of a unified budget, would the deficit which would begin to occur with respect to Social Security tax funds require a drastic cut in other non-Social Security programs to make up the trust fund deficit? Or would Congress change the formula for benefits and thus reduce those benefits? A scenario, which could occur under the balanced budget amendment as currently drafted, concerns the ability of the Government to repay to Social Security trust fund the interest owed from its Government investments. It seems that the intent of section 7 of the amendment is to exempt from total outlays the repayment of debt principal. Those words seem to be carefully chosen of ``debt principal.'' The unintended consequence--I hope it is unintended; it may not be unintended--to Social Security may be that should outlays exceed receipts from the general Treasury funds then, according to section 7, no interest payments would be made to the Social Security trust fund. What happens is that under the Social Security trust fund, we invest in Government securities. Those Government securities are not transferable. Those Government securities are particularly Social Security trust fund investments. They draw interest. That is part of the effort that was made to make the Social Security fund actuarially sound. But pursuant to the definitions under section 7 of outlays and of receipts, the definition of receipts, includes all receipts except those obtained from borrowing. The Social Security funds are in effect invested in Government securities and, therefore, they are borrowed money. Then we find that in the outlays, the definition is that it includes all outlays that the Government is obligated to pay with the exception of the payments to the debt principal. Therefore, it does not include the payments which we classify as interest. Since interest payments will be on budget, that causes a problem relative to whether or not interest payments will be paid back. The result of this nonpayment of interest due on principal debt could substantially affect the stability of the bonds, which secure the debt and the trust fund. If this should happen the bonds would probably go into default and thus have little value. This would cause a destabilization in the funds invested with Social Security trust fund dollars, and a loss of faith by the American people. To show what could happen, we look ahead and see what is the amount of money we are referring to and what could possibly be involved with this amendment. According to the Social Security Administration, they anticipate that by the year 2003 there will be $1,151,300,000,000 in assets of the Social Security fund. And, under the law, those assets, a surplus, will be invested in Government securities. If the interest could not be paid on those because of the operation of on-budget activity, then you would have $1 trillion that is in some bonds in which the Government has invested with no interest paid, and therefore causing serious problems, and certainly this would deprive the Social Security funds of the interest that has been accrued in the event that the on-budget does not pay them back. This could be averted through challenges in courts, but that raises questions of interpretation under the principles of constitutional construction. Generally, constitutional provisions have received a broader and more liberal construction than statutes. The Supreme Court in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 88 (1906), upheld this general rule stating ``the Constitution is not to be construed technically and narrowly, like an indictment, * * *, but as [a document that creates] a system of government whose provisions are designed to make effective and operative all the governmental powers granted.'' The balanced budget amendment presently contains exceptions which raise issues as to how broadly it should be interpreted. Section 7 of the balanced budget resolution contains language which creates exceptions to what shall be counted as receipts and outlays of the U.S. Government. The provision which pertains to outlays, specifically excepts from the calculation of outlays the repayment of debt principal. How broadly this exception may be interpreted raises great concern. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of statutory exceptions and has held that ``in construing provisions * * *, in which a general statement of policy is qualified by an exception, we usually read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the provision.'' Commissioner v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989); ``where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not implied.'' The Supreme Court in a 1991 case of United States versus Smith, and then in the case of Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. versus Brock, a 1987 case--held similarly to the previous courts, although this case dealt particularly with the Fair Labor Standards Act, it follows the statutory interpretation principle for a narrow interpretation of statutory exemptions. This textual principle of construction regarding the narrow construction of exceptions is included in the Canons of Construction, which are now followed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which we generally refer to as the Rehnquist court. We need to make sure that the scenarios that I have described do not happen. To do so will require an amendment to the present balanced budget resolution being offered. We should keep in mind that Social Security is a program self-financed from contributions by employees and employers, which does not contribute 1 penny to the deficit. In fact, Congress, realizing this fact, included in the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, a provision that declared that the funds were off budget. Unfortunately, the current resolution would clearly put Social Security on budget and thus overturn our recent decision to affirm the off- budget status of Social Security. I have supported a balanced budget amendment since my first days in the Senate. There have been several times in the past where the passage of an amendment was close but failed for one reason or another. But now that the amendment has passed the House, there is renewed momentum which I believe will carry the amendment successfully through the Senate. But as we debate and develop the balanced budget amendment, we need to be sure that we also protect the integrity of the Social Security System and maintain truth in budgeting. The protection of the self-funded system can be maintained by keeping it off budget and out of the balanced budget process. Mr. President, there has been raised the issue of whether or not the Reid amendment is proper in that it contains language which, in effect, refers to existing statutes. Some say this should not be included in the Constitution. However, it has been done before, in the 21st amendment. It was the 21st amendment that repealed the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment, as you remember, dealt with intoxicating liquors, and the 21st amendment repealed it. But in section 2 of the 21st amendment, it has this language: The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws thereof is hereby prohibited. What we were stating in that amendment was a reference to laws of States--not just the United States, but the laws of the States in its reference, and that, in my judgment, is a precedent for including the language that is included in the Reid amendment. Another source for precedent is in the 14th amendment--the 14th amendment, of course, is one of the amendments that was adopted following the War Between the States. In section 4 of that amendment, it makes reference to existing statutes. In that section it states: The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned. Again, it is referring to existing debts that were created under laws of the United States for the payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion. And then it goes forward in that section, * * * but neither the United States or any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void. So we have seen reference to statutory language in the Constitution on at least two occasions. I think others are seeking the floor. I am glad to yield if the Senator from South Carolina wishes to speak. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, sections 2071 through 2077 of title 28 of the United States Code are the cluster of statutory provisions authorizing the Supreme Court to issue the rules under which the various Federal courts function. While there have been many amendments to these sections over the years, the group is commonly referred to as the Rules Enabling Act. The original act, adopted in 1934, did not provide for committees to aid the Supreme Court in exercising this responsibility, but Chief Justice Hughes decided to appoint an advisory committee, whose original membership consisted of 13 members. Former Attorney General William Mitchell chaired the committee, which contained four law professors and eight very distinguished lawyers, including the president of the American Bar Association and the president of the American Law Institute. Between 1935 and the final promulgation of the rules in 1938, there were some changes in the personnel. Four practicing lawyers, two professors, and one district court judge became members of the committee. For the stupendous impact on the legal system of America, no subsequent rules have had the dynamic quality of those original rules. Over time, Congress has refined the system. The assistance of the committees is now regularized by statute--see 28 U.S.C. section 2073(a)(2)--and this section of the statute provides that the various committees, like the early committee, ``shall consist of members of the bench and the professional bar and trial and appellate judges.'' The members are appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. The rulemaking system, as spread over the various branches of the court system with rules of civil, criminal, appeals, evidence, bankruptcy, and so forth, has on the whole worked fairly well. Suffice it to say that today the rules pass from advisory committees to a central standing committee, and from there go to the Judicial Conference of the United States, which does in fact exercise a meaningful supervisory function. For example, last year the conference deleted a rule which had been recommended to it by the committee structure in the civil field. After the conference approves a rule, it then passes to the Supreme Court of the United States, whose members have somewhat differing views as to what function they can be expected actually to perform; there is some sentiment for letting the process stop with the Judicial Conference. Next, the rules pass to Congress, and if it does not disapprove them within 180 days, they become effective. I turn now to the exact matter at issue. I can most easily do so by quoting from a statement by the American Bar Association, dated March 28, 1994, to the relevant committee of the Judicial Conference: In 1935, when work was begun on the Federal rules, the advisory committee that did the drafting was comprised of nine lawyers and four academics; there were no judges involved. In 1960, when the advisory committee was reconstituted, a majority of its members were practicing lawyers. As late as 1981, 40 percent of the advisory committee were practitioners. Today, no more than 4 members of the key panel of 13 civil rules drafters are trial lawyers. While the inclusion of judges in the process has had undoubted benefit, the near-total exclusion of practicing trial lawyers has skewed the process and its product. We are not confident, as a consequence, that the process has produced rules that respond to the concerns of litigants and the lawyers who represent them in court. This trend must be reversed and lawyers restored to a position of real responsibility in the rules drafting process. In order to do this most effectively, and to benefit from the positive and valuable contributions of practicing lawyers to the rules process, the membership on all the advisory committees should be expanded to include more bar representation. I believe this position is well taken. Clearly a gulf has arisen between the rulemakers and the bar, which must live under those rules. In connection with the civil rules of last year, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice, which I chair, held hearings on the proposed rules changes, and we were overwhelmed by representatives of the bar strenuously objecting to several of the proposed rule changes. Both the House and Senate relevant committees concluded that the bar protests should be honored and that the rules should be changed; however, tangles in our own procedures prevented the more objectionable proposals from being deleted and all of the proposed changes went into effect on December 1, 1993. The bill I offer today will restore the composition of these committees which existed from the original rules in 1935 until approximately 1980 and which have been altered only in very recent times. This bill provides that a majority of all the rules committees shall be drawn from the practicing bar. It by no means diminishes the valuable role of academics and of judges, but it would restore to the bar a voice of responsibility. At the present time, under our statutes, the rules committees conduct extensive hearings. These become so crowded that individual presentations are necessarily brief, but they are balanced in the sense of giving broad scope to those who may participate. What is presented at those hearings, what is developed by the committee reporters and staff, and what is proposed by the various committee members themselves are all put into a mix which must be finally shaped by the committee itself. In my judgment, those committees are seriously lacking in balance. Their work product goes to the Judicial Conference, by definition composed entirely of judges; and assuming that the Supreme Court stays in the process, then to that body which is of course composed entirely of judges. Somewhere in the process, making rules under which the courts shall function and the bar of the country shall do its business, there should be more room for the effective voice of the bar itself. My proposal does not limit the broad discretion of the Chief Justice of the United States, who will continue to select the membership of the various committees subject only to the restriction that a majority should be members of the bar. I comfortably leave it to his good judgment as to how to achieve balanced committees. I offer this bill, to provide that the majority of the various committees shall be composed of practicing lawyers, in order to restore that balance, and I urge its consideration by my colleagues in the Senate. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the Federal courthouse in Decatur, AL, as the ``Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse.'' Judge Seybourn Harris Lynne was appointed to the Federal bench by President Harry S. Truman in 1946, and he is the most senior judge in the Federal court system. He has dedicated over 53 years of distinguished service to the judicial system, with 46 of those years spent on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Judge Lynne is a native of Decatur, AL, and Auburn University--at that time known as the Alabama Polytechnic Institute--where he graduated with highest distinction. He earned his law degree from the University of Alabama in 1930. While 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, Seybourn Lynne was elected judge of Morgan County court. He remained in that position until January 1941, when he took over the duties of judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Alabama. In December 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 1945 and awarded the Bronze Star Medal for gallant service against the enemy. When an opening occurred on the Federal bench, Alabama Senators Lister Hill and John Bankhead were called up to recommend an appropriate individual to be considered by the White House for judgeship. In January 1946, President Truman appointed Judge Lynne to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In 1953, he became the chief judge, and in 1973, the senior judge. As chief judge for the northern district of Alabama, Judge Lynne has been 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 has not been burdened with a stale and over-ripe docket, and the court's caseload was kept timely and current, thanks to the Judge Lynne's leadership. In addition to his 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 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 his abilities as an arbiter who was able to settle complex and difficult disputes. The judge has also been a notable community leader, serving in church, civic, and professional activities. He is a lifetime deacon, Bible class teacher, and a trustee of Southside Baptist Church. He has 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's Alumni Association. Mr. President, it is indeed fitting to honor Judge Lynne for his many years of tireless work on behalf of the State and Federal benches. He shines as a living example of the late President Truman's rich legacy, and designating the Federal courthouse in Decatur, AL in his honor will remain generations to come of his service to our country.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to provide for making a temporary judgeship for the northern district of Alabama permanent, and creating a new judgeship for the middle district of Alabama. The need for these judgeships has arisen pursuant to an increase in cases filed in both of these districts, as well as the filings as projected in the future. Further, the need is intensified by the judges, who are currently in a senior status in these districts, reducing their caseloads as they move toward full retirement. Currently the 2 districts are served by 10 permanent district judges; 7 in the northern district and 3 in the middle district. The bill I am introducing would make permanent a temporary judgeship, authorized in 1990, in the northern district. This conversion from a temporary judgeship to a permanent position was approved by the Judicial Conference in September 1994. The addition of one more permanent position to the middle district of Alabama's district court is warranted, among other factors, due to the increased case filings which have been experienced in that district over the past several years. In the past few years the increasing case filings and caseloads of all of the district court judges has been managed well by the courts using their available judicial resources. As the senior judges take on less cases, the remaining judges find themselves in situations in which they find it more and more difficult to manage their growing dockets in a timely manner. This not only affects the day-to-day operations of the court, but it also will inevitably affect litigants, by lengthening the time for disposition of a case, from what is now one of the fastest disposition periods in the Nation to a significantly slower pace. I would like to identify several factors which are similar in both districts and will result in loss of judicial expediency unless addressed. First, the reduced role of senior judges has increased the actual volume of cases which each district judge must handle; each district judge will have less time available to spend on each assigned case. Second, the increasing number of case filings will further reduce the capacity of the judges to devote time and attention to each case. And finally, both districts forecast an increase in the total number of criminal felony cases as well as the number of multidefendant criminal felony cases. To maintain the outstanding case management that litigants have come to expect in these courts, and rightly deserve in the all Federal courts, the factors stated above can be dealt with by making permanent the position in the northern district and by creating one new position for the middle district. Although these two districts have many concerns which are similar, they also are facing problems unique to each respective court. In the northern district of Alabama, we are asking that the temporary judgeship, authorized in 1990, be made permanent. This district had the highest pending cases per judge, according to the latest official data. Furthermore, it had the highest civil filings in the Nation for the 12- month period ending in September 1993. This high number of case filings along with the previous caseloads, actually support a request for a ninth judgeship, but we believe that the conversion of the temporary judgeship to the eight permanent judgeships will enable the district to competently handle its caseload. The middle district faces substantial problems in caseloads per judge. For the year ending June 30, 1994, the weighted case filing per judge had increased to 556, representing a 12.5-percent increase over a 5-year period. Weighted case filings of 556 cases per judge places that court second within the eleventh circuit and ninth in the Nation. During the statistical year ending June 30, 1994, the judges of the middle district averaged 650 case terminations per judge, which places that court first in the circuit and first in the Nation. With only three full-time judges and the near full retirement of the two senior judges the middle district may soon face dire consequences. The judges in both the middle and northern districts of Alabama have proven, that even with what some court would consider impossible caseloads, they have had the ability to dispose of cases in periods equal or better than the national average. To allow these district courts to continue their work and avoid substantial impairment in their ability to deliver justice we need to be assured that they have the necessary judicial resources. My bill, which provides for a fourth judgeship in the middle district and conversion of the northern district's temporary judgeship to a permanent position, supplies these resources.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend title 28 of the United States Code to improve the Federal Claims litigation process before the United States Court of Federal Claims and to assist the court in providing complete justice in cases that come before it. This legislation will also insure fair treatment for the regular and senior judges of the court by providing certain benefits equivalent to those available to other Federal trial judges. Enactment of this bill will provide the citizens of the United States with a more fair and complete remedy and the United States with a more effective forum for the resolution of claims against the Government. The Court of Federal Claims is the Nation's primary forum for monetary claims against the Federal Government. The court has jurisdiction to entertain suits for money against the United States that are founded upon the Constitution, an act of Congress, an Executive order, a regulation of an executive department, or contract with the United States and that do not sound in tort. The court hears major patent cases, Government contract suits, tax refund suits, fifth amendment takings cases and Indian claims, among other types of lawsuits. This national court and its judges hear cases in every State and territory of the United States for the convenience of the litigants, the witnesses and the Government. This benefits our judicial system and Nation by making the promise of fair dealing a reality. The legislation that I am introducing today will make administrative and jurisdictional changes with the result that the court's resources are preserved and utilized to the maximum extent and the jurisdiction of the court is clarified for the benefit of all. The ultimate result will be a more user-friendly forum which gets to the merits of controversies faster. In a moment, I will comment on all of the various sections of the bill, but first I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the need for the jurisdictional provisions of the bill. A potential litigant should be able to examine chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, which commences with the Tucker Act, section 1491, and to determine whether the court has jurisdiction of his claim and what relief is available. Of course, there are miscellaneous other provisions extending jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims, for example, 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1), tax refund suits; 42 U.S.C. section 300aa-11, Vaccine-injury compensation cases; and 50 U.S.C. app. section 1989b-4(h), Japanese internment compensation appeals. Chapter 91 of title 28 should be sufficiently clear so that even lawyers throughout the country who rarely handle claims against the Government could consult the code and find reliable answers. Regrettably, this is not the current situation. Instead, a typical claimant is met with a barrage of assertions that the court lacks jurisdiction to address the claim and/or lacks power to award relief requested even in those cases where jurisdiction is conceded. The amendments relating to jurisdiction in section 8 of the bill will result in clarity that will make access to the courts less costly by permitting the court to get to the real merits of the cases, rather than waste resources dealing with preliminary and peripheral issues, and these changes will result in real civil justice reform. The legislation that I am introducing today will repeal 28 U.S.C. 1500, which has heretofore denied Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over any claim with respect to which the plaintiff has pending a suit in any other court. Although, on its face, section 1500 may appear to prevent wasteful duplication, in practice it has had precisely the opposite effect. Elimination of this jurisdictional bar to suits related to cases in other courts will eliminate much wasteful litigation over nonmerits issues and will leave the court free to deal with potential duplication through the discretionary means of staying arguable duplicative litigation, if the matter is being addressed in another forum, or of proceeding with the case, if the matter appears to be stalled in the other forum. As currently construed section 1500 does not permit duplication of suits even if the Court of Federal Claims action was filed first and has received concentrated attention over a number of years. This situation can result in a major waste of resources by litigants and the court. Repeal of section 1500 will also allow the plaintiff to protect itself against the running of the statue of limitations by the wrong initial choice in this confusing area. In this day of electronic communication, computer tracking of cases and centralized docket control by the justice department, the Government will always know if a related claim is pending in two different courts and can request exercise of discretion by one or both courts to prevent duplicative litigation. Repeal of section 1500 would save untold wasted effort litigating over such marginal issues as whether a claim in the district court really is the same as one in the Court of Federal Claims. Further, in cases which constitute review of administrative agency action, the potential litigant should be able to know with absolute certainty what standard of review will be applied. In the proposed bill, the standard of review in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 will be made explicitly applicable. Although one would naturally assume from the face of 5 U.S.C. section 706 that these standards already apply in the Court of Federal Claims, there is some doubt and confusion over precisely which standards apply and the source of such standards. The proposed bill will end this confusion so that potential and actual litigants can know with certainty which standards will apply and where to find them. No legitimate interests are served by having the parties guess and litigate about the extent of the court's jurisdiction and powers or over the standard of review applicable in agency-review cases. Enactment of this bill will end such waste and keep everyone's focus on the merits of a given case and effective steps toward resolution of controversy. It will instill confidence that in the Court of Federal Claims, and every litigant, including the Government, will receive prompt and efficient justice. Let me provide a brief summary of my bill: Section 1 states that this act shall be cited as the ``Court of Federal Claims Administration Act.'' Section 2 will provide that in the event a judge is not reappointed, the judge will nonetheless remain in regular active status until his or her successor is appointed and takes office, thus insuring that the court will always have a full compliment of regular active judges. Section 3 will provide that judges of the Court of Federal Claims shall have authority to serve on the territorial courts when, and only when, their services are needed and are requested by or on behalf of such courts. Section 4 will simply clarify what is already assumed by all concerning the official duty station of retired judges on senior status. It will provide that the place where a retired judge of the Court of Federal Claims maintains his or her actual residence shall be deemed to be his or her official duty station. This is consistent with the current provision applicable to other Federal trial courts. Section 5 will provide for Court of Federal Claims membership on the Judicial Conference of the United States. Currently, there is no Court of Federal Claims representation on the judicial conference, even though the court is within the jurisdiction of the conference and derives its funding and administrative support from the administrative office of the U.S. courts which in turn operates under the supervision and direction of the judicial conference. Section 6 will provide that the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims may call periodic judicial conferences, which will include active participation of the bar, to consider the business of the court and improvements in the administration of justice in the court. This will make explicit the authority the court in conducting its business. Section 7 will amend section 797 of title 28 to provide that the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims is authorized to recall a formerly disabled judge who retires under the disability provisions of court's judicial retirement system if there is adequate demonstration of recovery from disability. This provision will match one currently applicable to formerly disabled judges of other Federal courts and will ensure maximum use of all available resources to deal with the court's caseload. Section 8 makes several modifications to statutory provisions pertaining to Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction in order to save recurring litigation regarding where claims should be filed, to define what judicial powers the court may exercise, and to specify what standards of review will apply in certain cases. Together, these changes will save untold resources of litigants and the court, and will make the court a more efficient forum for lawyers and parties to litigate their monetary claims against the Government. In addition, this section would extend to the court ancillary jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act when such a claim is directly related to one otherwise plainly within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court. This will avoid wasteful and duplicative litigation by authorizing the Federal Claims Court to address and dispose of the entire controversy in cases within its jurisdiction when a related claim, although sounding in tort, may fairly be deemed to arise from the same operative facts as the primary claim within the court's jurisdiction. Section 9 will ensure that Court of Federal Claims judges over age 65 who are on senior status will receive the same treatment as other Federal trial judges on senior status insofar as Social Security taxes and payments are concerned. Section 10 amends title 28 to clarify that the judges of the Court of Federal Claims are judicial officers eligible for coverage under annuity, insurance, and other programs available under title 5 of the United States Code and will extend to those judges the opportunity to continue Federal life insurance coverage after retirement in the same manner as all other Federal trial judges in the judicial branch. In summary, this bill will make the Court of Federal Claims more efficient and productive, resulting in benefits to the litigating public, the Government and the country as a whole. The United States Court of Federal Claims is an important part of the Federal court system. The creation of this court by the Congress responds to a very basic democratic imperative--fair dealing by the Government in disputes between the Government and the private citizen. As Abraham Lincoln noted: ``It is as much the duty of the Government to render prompt justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same, between private individuals.'' These amendments will allow it to better comply with its mandate and assist it in providing improved service to litigants and to the entire country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, publisher William Mathews ``Bill'' Stewart passed away on January 21 at the age of 74. A noted newspaperman in the State of Alabama for many years, Bill had been the owner of the Monroe Journal and a Monroeville, AL radio station. Bill bought the Journal in 1947, and in 1952 started radio station WMFC. He also established WBCA radio in Bay Minette, AL. Since 1958, he and his family owned the paper and the radio station. He remained editor of the paper until 1989 and was active in its management until very recently. He also owned papers in Bay Minette, Brewton, Camden, and Jackson, AL. A native of Autaugaville, Bill was a former president of the Alabama Press Association and the American Newspaper Representatives, an advertising agency. He earned his degree in journalism at the University of Alabama, was a reporter at the Huntsville Times, and served in the Army during World War II. Bill was also active in his local community. He was a past president of the Monroeville Chamber of Commerce and the Monroeville Kiwanis Club, and an organizer of the Monroe Country United Way. He was also a Sunday school teacher. The Kiwanis Club named him ``Man of the Year'' in 1996 and ``Citizen of the Year'' in 1990. He devoted most of life to bringing information to the people in his region of the State. Bill Stewart was totally committed to his profession and to serving his community through the written and spoken word. He truly understood the power of information and the importance of communication. He was known in the community as a leader dedicated to making his hometown the best place in the world in which to live. He was warm and friendly, and the depth of his compassion for people was reflected through his employment of the disabled. His demeanor was always that of a true gentleman. Bill's quiet and calm leadership helped lead Monroeville through the social changes of the last 35 years. It is never easy being the publisher of a small-town newspaper, but he was more willing than most to sacrifice popularity for his conscience. He was referred to by his minister as a ``tower of righteousness and integrity.'' Bill Stewart will be greatly missed by all those who had the pleasure of knowing him over the years. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Carolyn Hall Steward, and her entire family in the wake of this tremendous loss. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Mobile Register commenting on the life and career of Bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the Marine Corps' most outstanding leaders, Lt. Gen. Edward Craig, who recently passed away. Lieutenant General Craig was born in Danbury, CT, in 1896. He later attended St. Johns Military Academy in Delafield, WI. Upon graduation from the academy in 1917, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, and reported for duty on August 23, 1917. In November 1917, he was assigned to duty with the 8th Marine Regiment, and in April 1919, was ordered to foreign shore duty in Haiti and later with the Second Provisional Brigade marines in the Dominican Republic. His overseas World War II commands began in the summer of 1943 when he was given command of the 9th Marine Regiment at Guadalcanal. He was my regimental commander. He inspired great confidence in his officers and men. He was a superb battle commander. He led this regiment in the Bougainville invasion that fall. While remaining the colonel in charge of this regiment, he was in the forefront in the liberation of Guam, for which he was awarded the Navy Cross. The last of his World War II involvements included service in the 5th Amphibious Corps in the fall of 1944. As the corps operations officer, Lieutenant General Craig designed and actually participated in the landing and assault on Iwo Jima in 1944. He returned to the United States from the Pacific in July 1945. Following the end of World War II, he was again ordered overseas as assistant division commander of the 1st Marine Division, reinforced, in Tientsin, China. On June 1, 1947, he was assigned as commanding general, 1st Provisional Marine Brigade, Fleet Marine Force, on Guam, where he remained for 2 years. When the Korean conflict began he was assigned to Korea and served as the commanding general of the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade and participated in fighting around the Pusan perimeter. He later served as assistant division commander of the 1st Marine Division and took part in the landing at Inchon and operations in northeast Korea. At the time of his retirement on June 1, 1951, he was the director of the Marine Corps Reserve and was a veteran of more than 33 years of Marine Corps service. All of his endeavors in the service led to many well-deserved medals and honors. They include the Navy Cross; the Distinguished Service Medal; the Silver Star Medal; the Legion of Merit; the Bronze Star Medal; and the Air Medal with Citation; and the Navy Unit Citation. His other decorations and medals include the Presidential Unit Citation; the Navy Unit Citation; two Korean Presidential Unit Citations; the Victory Medal; the Haitian Campaign Medal in 1919; the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal with one Bronze Star, Dominican Republic 1919-21, and China 1924; the Second Nicaraguan Campaign Medal, 1929-30; the American Defense Service Medal with Fleet Clasp; the American Campaign Medal; the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with four Bronze Stars; the World War II Victory Medal; the China Service Medal, 1947, the Navy Occupational Medal, Japan 1946; and the Korean Campaign Medal. Memories of Lt. Gen. Edward Craig and his wife, Mrs. Marion Mackie Craig will always be with me. He was truly an American hero and a marine's marine.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I want to pay tribute and offer my congratulations to my dear friend Judge William C. Sullivan on his new- found lifestyle--retirement. Before starting his legal career in 1951, and becoming a circuit judge for Talledega County, Bill served in the U.S. Navy; played on a semi-pro baseball league; and was mayor of Lincoln, AL. When recalling my many memories of Judge Sullivan, I remember a rather humorous occasion which occurred in the summer of 1954. A police chief came to a baseball game in which Sullivan was a player only to tell him a gubernatorial candidate, ``Big Jim'' Folsom, wanted to see him. William sent word back to Jim that he would have to wait until the end of the game before he would break loose. When the two met, Bill of course in his soiled uniform, Big Jim was in disbelief--he even told Bill Sullivan he did not look like a mayor. Sullivan simply smiled and reminded Big Jim he was only a candidate, and not a Governor. The two later reunited when Big Jim swore Bill in as a judge 4 years later. Perhaps Judge Sullivan is most known for a 1962 civil rights case he presided over in which the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was an acting attorney. Bill and I share one belief--we both agreed the transition from attorney to judge was difficult because once we became judges, we simply acted as referees. Thus, we could not ``slug it out'' in court with other attorneys. Judge Sullivan obviously knew his stuff. He went 20 years without a single reversal. Bill and his followers are proud of the fine job he did while serving on the Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions Committee, since it was his panel that published a reference book for jury instructions in civil cases used by most judges and lawyers in the State today. Bill has said he will not miss the workload, but will miss the challenging cases being played out in the courtroom. Upon his retirement, Talledega lost one of its best judges. I wish him all the best in his retirement and commend him for his leadership over the years.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Now, Mr. President, we know all the statistics and have heard all the arguments for and against an amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget on numerous occasions over the years. It appears, however, that this body will finally get its best chance yet to draw upon the potential of this Nation and finally adopt a balanced budget amendment resolution and send it to the States for ratification. The 104th Congress has seen a confluence of political and fiscal developments that makes the amendment's chances of passage this year by both Chambers of the Congress better than ever before. The House has already acted, and has said emphatically that this is the discipline we need. The intense concern to do something about the deficit has become part of the national psyche: It is on the mind of every person who thinks and cares about the future of America. This resolution enjoys broad bipartisan support. For most of our history, a balanced budget at the national level of government as an unwritten part of our Constitution. A balanced or surplus budget was the norm for the first 100 years of the Republic. In recent decades, however, Americans have witnessed a continuing cycle of deficits, taxes, and spending. We tend to look at each program in isolation, not realizing how each appropriation affects an already strained treasury. Alexander Hamilton, while serving as Secretary of the Treasury, once said: ``Public debt swells 'till its magnitude becomes enormous, and the [burdens] of the people gradually increase 'till their weight becomes intolerable. Of such a state of things great disorders in the whole political economy, convulsions, and revolutions of government are a natural offspring.'' Hamilton made this observation nearly 200 years ago, but it is surely instructive to us as we debate the balanced budget amendment. Similarly, once our Constitution was finally adopted, Thomas Jefferson warned, ``The public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared by a republican government'' Jefferson knew the long-term evils of deficit spending. Over the course of history, we have lost sight of our Forefathers' warnings. I am firmly convinced that the Federal Government does not have the will power to reduce spending and balance its budget without a constitutional amendment mandating that it do so. Yes, this amendment's opponents argue that if we possessed and practiced a stronger discipline, such a drastic measure would not be needed. I do not dispute that sentiment. I wholeheartedly wish that we did not need this amendment. I do not take amending the U.S. Constitution lightly. But I do dispute the sentiment's reality. Incredibly, the last balanced budget came 25 years ago under President Johnson. The haphazard fiscal policies of the last 20 years or so show that the problem goes much deeper than individual or collective resolve. We have to admit that simple collective will power will not solve this dilemma, regardless of who is responsible for the state of affairs as it now stands. We all must accept responsibility. It is the institutional structure of government that encourages short-term responses to individual need, rather than their implications for the greater good and the future. Others argue that such an amendment would alter forever the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. But under this amendment, each branch will retain its constitutional powers. The stalemate we have now with regard to national fiscal policy would be broken without significant changes in the balance of power. Other opponents say that this amendment will result in economic policy and budgeting by court decree, significantly higher taxes, and severe cuts in important programs. The provisions in this resolution address each of these arguments and provide safeguards against them. The bottom line is that the amendment will impose upon the executive and legislative branches the discipline needed to set priorities. It is important to understand what will happen if we do not get our national deficits and debt under control. Increased debts leave smaller safety margins necessary to deal with possible economy, leaving it highly vulnerable to increases in interest rates or shortfalls in income. Moreover, should interest rates rise during this period of high personal and corporate debt, many individuals and businesses would be unable to meet the high interest payments to follow. Bankruptcy and economic instability would become widespread. If we look back just a few years, we can see that the refusal of the executive branch and Congress to take seriously the mounting deficit was one reason the American economy faltered during the period before the 1992 elections. As our national savings pool shrank, our rate or gross investment became too low, our interest rates too high, and job creation too slow. The favorable economic conditions we have now are encouraging, and proof that the omnibus bill we passed in August 1993 was the right thing to do. But this should in no way absolve us from taking further, more definitive action by passing this resolution. We should not fear the State's approval of an amendment to balance the Federal budget, as over 30 have already signaled a willingness to do. The State legislatures are where the heart of this debate should be, since more than 40 out of 50 have already learned to operate under laws mandating balanced budgets. There is no doubt as to what our responsibilities as national leaders are in this regard. There is also no question as to what the American people want and deserve. The only question is whether we are willing to respond affirmatively by accepting the challenge. What this debate boils down to is the very future of this country. A constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget is the only way to once and for all control spending and eliminate record high deficits. It is time to take decisive action rather than to continue divisive rhetoric. Indeed, we have already exhausted a wealth of different options to bring our finances under control, but they remain out of kilter. The right thing to do is to amend the Constitution so that Congress and the President are required to balance the budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 358, a bill which will clarify the tax treatment of air ambulance flights. The purpose of an air ambulance is to transport critically ill or injured patients quickly and with the appropriate level of care between hospitals or from roadside accidents to emergency rooms. Nearly 70 percent of all air medical transports originate in rural locations. Since air ambulances are reimbursed for providing their services, though, they are considered charter operators, and therefore, must pay the Federal aviation excise tax. The need for this legislation is evident when you consider that nearly half of all air medical flights are reimbursed from Government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Champus, or State programs. In effect, this means that the tax revenue generated is simply one Government agency paying a tax to another with an air ambulance program acting as tax collector. Commercial airlines can pass this tax on to its paying customers, but for transportation on an air ambulance, this tax is passed on to the payor even if that payor is another Government program such as Medicare. Furthermore, even though the total portion of tax revenue generated by air ambulances is small compared to airlines, approximately 45,000 covered air medical transports compared to 500 million commercial and charter passengers, the financial and administrative burden on air ambulance administrators is significant. I do not believe that it was the intention of Congress, when this tax was drafted, for critically ill or injured patients, or those paying their health costs, to support the aviation trust fund. My bill will correct this obvious oversight by reducing the administrative burden on air medical programs. Its impact on Federal revenues is only slight. Its impact on access to rural health care however is significant. Therefore I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the recent 100 year birthday of Lanett, AL, a small textile city located on the bluffs of the Chattahoochee River in Chambers County. Lanett--named for Mr. Lafayette Lanier, an early councilman and president of West Point Manufacturing Co., and Mr. Theodore Bennett, a Bostonian who served as the selling agent for West Point Manufacturing Co.--is a town rich with history. On December 7, 1865, the Alabama Legislature convened in general assembly and passed the act of incorporation for the town of Bluffton, AL. Twenty-eight years later, a new charter was sought. Bluffton had grown, and the citizens of the town deemed it appropriate to change the town's name. On February 1, 1895, a charter for the newly named town of Lanett was approved by the State legislature. The new charter provided means by which the town clerk could assess taxes and sell property of delinquent taxpayers after a proper notification. Police were given jurisdiction over areas 1 mile beyond the town boundaries. Road and street work, which previously was demanded of every male over the age of 18, could now be exempted upon payment of a $3-a-year street tax. The city of Lanett struggled in its infancy for financial survival. Early records show the city had to borrow money at 8 percent interest in order to pay its bills. Happily, in the year of 1902, the treasurer reported for the first time that income exceeded the town's debts and that there was even a balance on hand at year's end. Other problems beset the first few years of Lanett. The smallpox epidemic of 1903 had a grave impact on the city. Dr. S.H. Newman was paid $10 a year by the city to treat the patients. After a long bout with this disease, a fumigation and vaccination program was begun. The city of Lanett has come a long way over the past 100 years. Today, it is a healthy city of over 9,000 residents. It owns and operates its own electrical, natural gas, water, an sewage treatment systems. It has a street department and collects its own garbage. Furthermore, it has one of the most modern police, fire and emergency medical service departments in the State. As you can see, Mr. President, Lanett has a lot going for it. The centennial celebration committee has chosen as its theme, ``Remembering the past as we prepare for the future.'' Mr. President, I believe that alive and well.