Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there is certain language in the resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that I think needs some explanation and may throw some light on some aspects of our Government that we need to be informed about. Section 2 speaks of the debt of the United States. This is a section that I believe should be very strongly included because I think it gives enforcement power. It reads as follows: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. Now, the particular language that I want to direct the attention of the Senate to is ``the debt of the United States held by the public.'' In the committee report, which I intend to offer in its entirity into the Record, there are explanations on various aspects of the language found in the resolution. Let me direct your attention to these words * * * debt of the United States held by the public * * * a phrase which is a widely used and understood measurement tool. The General Accounting Office, in its ``Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process'' [(Exposure Draft, January 1993)], defines ``Debt Held by the Public'' as ``That part of the gross Federal debt held outside the Federal Government. This includes all Federal debt held by individuals, corporations, State or local governments, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign governments and central banks. Debt held by government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds is excluded from the debt held by the public.'' The current, accepted meaning of ``debt * * * held by the public'' is intended to be the controlling definition under this article. I think it is very important, relative to trust funds, that we understand that the debt held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds is excluded from the language ``debt held by the public.'' Now, under section 2, it takes a three-fifths vote to be able to raise the national debt held by the public. I interpret this to mean that in the event that we did not raise the national debt, we did not vote by the three-fifths vote to do it, then trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds that are in surplus could continue to be paid. Normally, in the course of events, if the U.S. debt is not raised, you have reached the maximum of the debt. Therefore, you cannot borrow. When you cannot borrow and do not have funds to operate on, the Federal Government comes to a halt. But by this language, ``trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds'' are excluded from this. Therefore, if there is surplus in those trust funds, then payments can be made to the recipients of those trust funds or those revolving funds. Now, that would apply to Social Security funds. That would apply to highway trust funds. That would apply to aviation trust funds and others, according to the way I read this, relative to the operation of the Federal Government in the event that a debt limit is not raised in order for the government then to continue to borrow. I want to also speak briefly on trust funds and to some of the other aspects of this language. Under section 1, we have a situation where the total outlays shall not exceed the total receipts for the fiscal year unless you have a three-fifths vote. In the definition as to what ``receipts'' means, under section 7, it is defined in the language and it is the explanation given in the committee report that: Total receipts * * * is intended to include all moneys received by the Treasury of the United States, either directly or indirectly through Federal or quasi-Federal agencies created under the authority of acts of Congress, except those derived from borrowing. In its present usage, ``receipts'' is intended to be synonymous with the definition of ``budget receipts,'' which are not meant to include offsetting collections or refunds. The exception to total receipts is ``except those derived from borrowing.'' And this ``is intended to exclude from the receipts the proceeds of debt issuance. To borrow is to receive with the intention of returning the same or the equivalent. It is intended that those obligations, the title to which can be transferred by the present owner to from receipts.'' Now here is an important aspect of this explanation: ``Contributions to social insurance programs, though also carrying an implied obligation, are not transferable and should be included in receipts.'' Basically, I interpret this language to mean that trust funds, like Social Security, which take in contributions, should, therefore, consider those contributions as receipts within the meaning of the foregoing language. Therefore, they are not excepted from the definition of total receipts. Actually, I believe the way this is written, ``to include all moneys received by the Treasury of the United States,'' will mean that Social Security funds and other trust funds cannot legislatively be declared to be off-budget. I believe that the way this language is written constitutionally requires that trust funds be on-budget as opposed to being off-budget. Now, trust funds are in instances loaned to the Government where there is a surplus like in the Social Security trust fund or in the highway trust fund or in the aviation trust fund, and so forth. They are placed in Government securities, as required by Federal law. Being placed in Government securities, therefore, they are not transferable, because they are a unique type of obligation that is required for the Government to purchase. Therefore, a surplus that is invested from the Social Security trust fund can be repaid under the language of this amendment and the definition of outlays has to be considered. In the definition of outlays, the amendment says, ``Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for the repayment of debt principal.'' So, in regard to the application of the balanced budget amendment and the balancing of the budget to require a three-fifths vote, we see that, first, trust funds surpluses are included in the total receipts but for the pay-back of the trust funds. Therefore, there is the exception that excludes it from the three-fifths vote in that it is a repayment of debt principal. And the repayment of debt principal allows the borrowing that is done from trust funds to be repaid without having to go through the three-fifths votes or to be, in effect, on budget in that manner. Now, there is a problem, as I see it, where the Social Security trust fund or any other trust fund with a surplus, is taken and put into the special types of instruments by which the Government invests in Government securities. But there is a problem in that attributable interest is not included in the ``total outlays'' exception. As the attributable interest on the debt principal becomes due and payable, therefore, a question is raised as to whether or not it has to be paid through the regular budget and could Congress, by law, refuse to pay the interest due on the principal debt? These are questions which must be answered in the days ahead as we debate the implications of whether or not there should be a Social Security exclusion within the proposed constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. A similar question is raised in regard to an issue pertaining to a capital budget. As I interpret the language, the definition of total receipts excepts from the total receipts those that are derived from borrowing. If we borrow, then we would have the right for that income not to be included in regard to total receipts. Then, on outlays where we have an exception for the repayment of debt principal, we have an exception which can apply to a capital budget. But again, the attributable interest has to be handled through the two- thirds vote and through the three-fifths vote in a manner that it is brought up. I do not think the language of this excludes a capital budget, but on the other hand there is the question pertaining to the interest that I think is a matter that ought to be considered and about which we ought to be knowledgeable as we further debate this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee report filed on this proposed resolution be considered, as fully printed, a part of the debate at this point in my remarks.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise again to express my support for a constitutional amendment requiring the Federal Government to achieve and maintain a balanced budget. The time has finally come to pass this legislation and send it to the States for ratification. This amendment is not a gimmick, nor is it chicanery; it is good common sense. We have seen in the House, on January 26, overwhelming, bipartisan support and passage of a balanced budget amendment. The vote in the House 300 to 132, 12 more than the two-thirds majority required for passage of a constitutional amendment, proves that the time for action is now. This momentum, shown by the House, is one which I believe will only grow as the Senate and eventually the State legislatures debate and vote to pass this vital amendment to our Constitution. I commend the Members of both parties in the House, who formed an alliance to produce the vote, which was a culmination of over 10 years of House deliberation and debate. I applaud all for their determination to see this legislation succeed, as well as the many House Democrats who have worked unceasingly toward this victory. And, as the waves of this tide roll into the Senate we should be aware of where the original swell began, the American people. Since I first came to the Senate in 1979, every Congress I have introduced legislation proposing a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget, and I have dedicated myself to many years of work with my colleagues to adopt a resolution which for ratification of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. For much of our Nation's history, a balanced Federal budget was the status quo and part of our unwritten constitution. For our first 100 years, this country carried a surplus budget, but in recent years this Nation's spending has gone out of control. Indeed, the fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated over the years has convinced me that constitutional discipline is the only way we can achieve the goal of reducing deficits. As you know, in 1982, the Senate did pass, by more than the required two-thirds vote, a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget. There were 69 votes in favor of it and that time. It was sent to the House of Representatives, where, in the House Judiciary Committee it was bottled up. The chairman would not allow it to come up for a committee vote, in order that it might be reported to the floor of the House of Representatives. In order to bring the measure up for a vote in the House of Representatives, it was necessary to file a discharge petition. This is a petition that has to be signed by more than a majority of the whole number of the House of Representatives, and then it is brought up and voted on without amendment. The Senate-passed amendment failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds vote that was required in the House of Representatives at that time. In the 99th Congress, after extensive debate, passage of a balanced budget amendment by the Senate failed by one vote--but got 66 votes. During the 101st Congress, I supported a measure which passed the Judiciary Committee, but it was never considered by the full Senate. In the 102d Congress, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported a balanced budget bill, but since an amendment failed to pass the House of Representatives by the necessary two-thirds vote, this killed the possibility of favorable action by the Senate. In the 103d Congress, the Senate narrowly defeated an amendment, which I cosponsored, by a vote of 63 to 47--4 votes short of the 67 votes needed for passage. All the while, there has been considerable debate, various articles have been written in numerous publications, and editorials have appeared in countless newspapers. Many speeches have been made on the floor of the Senate, and I have made numerous speeches advocating the adoption of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Mr. President, I hope the time has come to finally adopt this long- overdue amendment and begin to move toward our goal of a balanced Federal budget. Section 1 of the amendment requires a three-fifths vote of each House of Congress before the Federal Government can engage in deficit spending. A 60-percent vote in the Senate is a very difficult one to obtain. This requirement should establish the norm that spending will not exceed receipts in any fiscal year. If the Government is going to spend money, it should have the money on hand to pay its bills. Section 2 of the amendment requires a three-fifths vote by both Houses of Congress to raise the national debt. In addition to the three-fifths vote, Congress must provide by law for an increase in public debt. As I understand it, this means presentment to the President, where the President has the right to veto or sign. If the President chose to veto the bill, it would be returned to Congress for action to possibly override the veto. It is also important to note that section 1, regarding the specific excess of outlays over receipts, contains this same requirement that Congress act by law. Section 2 is important because it functions as an enforcement mechanism for the balanced budget amendment. While section 1 states outright that ``Total outlays * * * shall not exceed total receipts'' without the three-fifths authorization by Congress. Therefore, section 2 will require a three-fifths vote to increase the national debt. This provision will increase the pressure to comply with the directive of this proposed constitutional amendment. In my judgment, section 2 puts teeth into the constitutional amendment. We have had many statutory enactments that say we are going to have a balanced budget. We have a procedure under this constitutional amendment that makes it more difficult to engage in deficit spending. This is a procedure by which, if there is an excess of outlays over receipts--and that means deficit spending during a fiscal year--we must approve that specific amount by a three-fifths vote of the whole membership of both Houses. That in and of itself is fine, but it is largely directory. It does not have an enforcement procedure. An enforcement procedure is provided by section 2 of the amendment, which is the public debt provision. The public debt provision makes it more difficult for Congress to vote a deficit. It means that if we vote a deficit and fail to increase the public debt, then Government will come to a halt. If we do not increase the public debt, eventually, we run on a balanced budget. Therefore, section 2 has the intention of making it more difficult. So I say it is not for the purpose of making it harder to pay our debts, it is to make it harder to go into deficit spending and to give an enforcement procedure--a process, a mechanism that is so important because it is not just words that we could pass by and ignore. Other than just being directory, the amendment, by way of section 2, has some teeth and that is what is so important if we are going to do away with deficit spending and operate so that we do not spend any more money than the amount coming into the Government. That is what we are trying to achieve here. Section 3 provides for the submission by the President of a balanced budget to Congress. This section reflects the belief that sound fiscal planning should be a shared governmental responsibility by the President as well as the Congress. Section 4 of the amendment requires a majority vote of the whole number of each House of Congress any time Congress votes to increase revenues. This holds public officials responsible, and puts elected officials on record for any tax increase which may be necessary to support Federal spending. Section 5 of the amendment permits a waiver of the provision for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. This section also contains a provision long-supported by myself--that of allowing a waiver in cases of less than an outright declaration of war--where the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security, and is so declared by a joint resolution, which becomes law. Under this scenario, a majority of the whole number of each House of Congress may waive the requirements of a balanced budget amendment. I firmly believe that Congress should have the option to waive the requirement for a balanced budget in cases of less than an outright declaration of war. Looking back over the history of our Nation, we find that we have had only five declared wars: The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the First World War, and the Second World War. The most recent encounters of the United States in armed conflict with enemies have been, of course, undeclared wars. We fought the gulf war without a declaration of war. In addition, we fought both the Vietnam and Korean actions without declarations of war. This country can be faced with military emergencies which threaten our national security, without a formal declaration of war being in effect. Circumstances may arise in which Congress may need to spend significant amounts on national defense without a declaration of war. Congress and the President must be given the necessary flexibility to respond rapidly when a military emergency arises. In the future, there could be a war like the Vietnam war--which went on for 11 years. Without a waiver for situations regarding less than an outright declaration of war, each year you would have to waive the constitutional amendment pertaining to a balanced budget by a three- fifths vote. We might look back and we would see that the vote to withdraw the troops from Vietnam carried by only eight votes. The difference between a majority and a three-fifths vote is a difference between 51 and 60, which is 9 votes. in only five declared wars, yet the United States has engaged in hostilities abroad which required no less commitment of human lives or American resources than declared wars. In fact, our Nation has been involved in approximately 200 instances in which the United States has used military forces abroad in situations of conflict. Not all of these would move Congress to seek a waiver of the requirement of a balanced budget, but Congress should have the constitutional flexibility to provide for our Nation's security. Twice since the end of the Second World War, first in Korea and then in Indochina, this Nation has been heavily engaged in armed conflicts abroad. In other instances, American troops have been sent to foreign countries in times of crisis--Lebanon in 1958, and the Dominican Republic in 1965. Other critical situations, including the confrontation in the Formosa Straits in 1955, and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, have been met by use of American military forces. I think it is wise to look at some of the other instances in which we have had undeclared war and to see how serious they were. During 1914 to 1917, a time of revolution in Mexico, there were at least two major armed actions by United States forces in Mexico. The hostilities included the capture of Vera Cruz and Pershing's subsequent expedition into northern Mexico. In 1918, Marines landed at Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate. The United States landed 7,000 troops which remained until January 29, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and suffered some 500 casualties. In 1927, fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and Marine forces to be increased. In March 1927, a naval guard was stationed at the American consulate at Nanking after national forces captured the city. A United States and British warship fired on Chinese soldiers to protect the escape of Americans and other foreigners. By the end of 1927, the United States had 44 naval vessels in Chinese waters, and 5,670 men ashore. When a pro-Nasser coup took place in Iraq in January 1958, the President of Lebanon sent an urgent plea for assistance to President Eisenhower, saying Lebanon was threatened by both internal rebellion and indirect aggression. President Eisenhower responded by sending 5,000 marines to Beirut to protect American lives and help the Lebanese maintain their independence. This force was gradually increased to 14,000 soldiers and marines who occupied strategic positions throughout the country. The most recent military involvement of the United States in an undeclared war is, of course, the Persian Gulf war. Although the actual gulf war lasted just over a month, this country had a peak strength of 541,000 troops. In addition, the Department of Defense estimates the cost of operation Desert Storm at $47 billion. We should recall the circumstances which occurred on January 12, 1991, when the Senate, agreeing with the House, voted by a slim margin of 52-47 to approve the use of force to stop Iraqi aggression against the State of Kuwait. This slim margin illustrates how difficult it would be without such a provision, to achieve the needed 60 votes to take a budget into deficit posture in order to finance the gulf war. Thus, circumstances may arise in which Congress may need to spend significant amounts on national defense without a declaration of war. Congress and the President must be given the necessary flexibility to respond rapidly when a military emergency arises. Section 6 of the amendment permits Congress to rely on estimates of outlays and receipts in the implementation and enforcement of the amendment by appropriate legislation. Section 7 of the amendment provides that total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. In addition, total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal. This section is intended to better define the relevant amounts that must be balanced. Mr. President, the future of our Nation's economy is not a partisan issue, which was proven with the recent vote of the House. Furthermore, the problem of deficit spending cannot be blamed on one branch of Government or one political party. Similarly, just as everyone must share part of the blame for our economic ills, everyone must be united in acting to attack the growing problem of deficit spending. I recognize that a balanced budget amendment will not cure our economic problems overnight, but it will act to change the course of our future and lead to responsible fiscal management by our national Government. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President. I want to pay tribute to one of my longtime friends, Ken L. Lott, Jr., who passed away on January 16. A native of Selma, and longtime resident of Mobile, Ken was known to many as a leader and a friend. Ken received a bachelor's degree in commerce from Auburn University, where he was an Army ROTC cadet. The leadership skills he learned while a cadet helped him rise to the position of a field artillery captain in the 29th Infantry Division. His service to his country led to him receiving the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. After Ken's enlistment in the Army ended, he began a professional career in the banking industry. His professional affiliations included memberships with Southland Bancorporation and the International Division of First Alabama Bancshares, Inc. He was also the former chairman of Merchants National Bank. Although Ken was very involved in his professional career, he still found time to devote to his community. He was cofounder of the Community Foundation in 1975 and served as its first president. Additionally, his community involvement can be seen through the directorships and affiliations he once had. These included the Mobile Kiwanis Club, the Country Club, Goodwill Industries, and the chamber of commerce. His community and State showed great appreciation to Ken by inducting him into the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame in 1991. The Mobile community is highly grateful for what Ken gave it over the years. He will be greatly missed by those fortunate to have known him. My deepest condolences are extended to his family and loved ones.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of musician Dr. John M. Long, who recently was inducted into the National Band Association's Hall of Fame. When looking back at John's accomplishments, one can see why he has had such an impact on the music industry. John's phenomenal career began while directing the Robert E. Lee High School Band in Montgomery, AL. This band set several records and became the envy of many others. John later went on to Troy State University to even greater achievements. In the 29 years he directed the Troy State band, it made numerous recordings; appeared at four U.S. Presidential inaugurations, and played for the President twice. His accomplishments have obviously made his coworkers and students think highly of him. In fact, they named the band room at Troy State in his honor. While directing his various bands, he has received numerous honors. In 1977, he was the first active director to be elected to the Alabama Bandmasters Hall of Fame. Later on in 1984, he was the first person to receive the Alabama Music Educator of the Year award. This is a great accomplishment because no one has been the recipient of this award for 40 years. There is no question in my mind that School Musician magazine made the right choice in choosing him as one of the 10 outstanding band directors in the United States. Additionally, the hard work he has put forth for the love of his job and music can be seen through the various music-related organizations he has associated himself with. They are the American Bandmaster's Association; the College Directors Association; the National Band Association. Dr. Long's influence on students, musicians, and the public truly make him a legend in the music industry. His accomplishments in the field have opened up a whole new world for many people, young and old alike. It is my pleasure to congratulate Dr. Long on all of his achievements and wish him much happiness for the future.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, conductor Vernon Raines is one of those rare individuals who has been truly blessed with a divine talent for music, and who has worked effortlessly to spread musical enlightenment to the citizens of south Alabama. It is as if the music has always been in his heart, as if it were his destiny. At the age of 6, Vernon had already written his first violin composition, and had begun to play the piano by ear. By the time he was 18, he had become the musical director of the Mobile Chamber Orchestra and had begun a career that included over 28 years as conductor and musical director of the Meridian Symphony Orchestra. He also Southern Mississippi symphony, opera, and ballet; and was the associate professor of music and the chairman of the music department at Livingston University, in Livingston, Alabama for nearly 8 years. In addition, Mr. Raines was an organizer of the Mobile Chamber Orchestra, was a key facilitator of the Mobile Symphonic Society, and served as the guest conductor of the Kwangju Philharmonic of Korea in 1987. He has also performed many times on public radio and television, and has made five guest appearances at the Mobile Opera Guild Workshop. Mr. Raines graduated from Murphy High School in Mobile, and received his bachelor of music degree from the University of Alabama. He then went on to receive his master of music degree from Florida State University, studied at the American Symphony Orchestra League's Eastern Institute of Orchestral Studies, and studied privately under such noted conductors as Leo Mueller and Ernst von Dohnanyi. It is my sincere pleasure and honor to commend and congratulate Mr. Vernon Raines on his outstanding career as a musician and conductor. He is truly a guiding force in the Greater Gulf Coast musical scene, and is an inspiration to the young musicians of Alabama. May he continue to enlighten the hearts of Alabamians with the beautiful music of our past.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the Rotary Club of Birmingham, AL honored Dr. Leslie S. Wright on Wednesday, January 25 for his outstanding leadership during the 1985-88 term as Rotary International's PolioPlus campaign chairman. During his 3-year tenure as leader of this worldwide fundraising effort, Dr. Wright inspired and motivated Rotarians around the globe to more than double their original goal of $120 million. To date, Rotarians, companies, and individuals have donated over $247 million to rid the world of polio by the year 2005. Not only has the money been raised, but thousands of Rotarians have volunteered countless hours toward 1 billion children being immunized. Our own hemisphere has been declared free of polio and we are well on our way to seeing an end to this dreaded disease before the target date of 2005. Altogether, 141 countries are now polio free. It is a grand understatement to say that the response to Dr. Wright's dynamic leadership was overwhelming. A native of Birmingham, Leslie S. Wright earned two degrees from the University of Louisville. He has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees by Auburn University, the University of Alabama, Troy State University, Samford University, and the University of Louisville. In 1983, he retired as president of Samford University, having served there since 1958. He remains the university's chancellor. A Rotarian since 1947, Dr. Wright is a member and past president of the Rotary Club of Birmingham. He has served Rotary International as district governor, International assembly instructor, committee member and chairman, and director. He has received the Citation for Meritorious Service and the Distinguished Service Award from the Rotary foundation for his support of its international humanitarian and educational programs. He was appointed a charter member of the Alabama State Ethics Commission in 1973, serving a total of 6 years. He was twice chairman of the commission. Perhaps more than anyone else, Dr. Wright led the way in the drive to eradicate polio. I can think of no one more deserving of this honor and praise that was recently bestowed by his fellow Rotarians in Birmingham. I applaud his vision and congratulate him on his many achievements.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as we know, a vaccine against cancer is one of the most eagerly sought objectives of medical science. Preclinical studies and patient trials of several potential vaccines are under way in the United States and Europe. At the University of Alabama at Birmingham's [UAB] Comprehensive Cancer Center, at least four cancer vaccine strategies are being developed. Two of these approaches are now in clinical trials open to patients. The other two are in development in preclinical animal studies. In 1993, the National Cancer Institute [NCI] and the UAB Cancer Center entered into a cooperative agreement which provided the center with $1.5 million in support over 5 years to conduct a series of cancer vaccine trials. The UAB Cancer Center is one of 27 such centers in the Nation that meets the high standards for comprehensive designation by the NCI, and it was one of the first eight so designated in 1973. Now in its 23d year of core grant support by the NCI, the UAB center was renewed this year for core funding over the next 5 years in the range of $27 million. After meticulous review, the NCI also gave the center its highest priority rating based on program excellence. The trials currently under way at UAB include those for breast cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma. The traditional concept of vaccination is to protect against future exposure to disease. Through work such as that being done at UAB, this concept is now being extended to include therapeutic applications to stimulate the immune system to kill tumor cells or infections like AIDS that already are established in the body. I want to commend and congratulate the outstanding physicians and scientists at UAB who are working so hard to make the hope of a cancer vaccine a reality. I ask unanimous consent that an article detailing the colon cancer vaccine trials from the Birmingham Post-Herald be printed in the Record following my remarks. New Vaccine Used To Fight Colon Cancer (By John Staed) Birmingham scientists successfully used a vaccine to get the body's immune system to fight colon cancer cells, marking the first time in the world the therapy has worked on human patients. The University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers also reported plans to test a genetic vaccine for breast cancer in women. The vaccine causes the immune system to recognize and attack breast cancer tumor cells. Until now, vaccines have normally been used to prevent diseases such as polio or mumps. This new approach by scientists enhances the body's immune system responses to existing diseases, said Dr. Albert LoBuglio, director of the UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center. LoBuglio spoke yesterday during a briefing on developments at the center and UAB's new Vaccine Center. Among its projects, the vaccine center is examining ways to develop immunizations for bugs that cause pneumonia, to introduce vaccine doses in foods to lower immunization costs, and to find new vaccines for infectious diseases that are increasingly resistant to modern antibiotics. In the colon cancer research, four patients who had colon cancer tumors surgically removed but who had a 60 percent chance of recurrence were treated over 16 weeks with the new vaccine. ``Two of the four have developed substantial immune responses,'' LoBuglio said. ``We're hoping it translates into an anti-tumor effect.'' Colon cancer, or cancer of the large bowel and rectum, is expected to be diagnosed in 149,000 people this year in the United States. Together, the cancers of the colon and rectum are second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer deaths. About half of the colon cancers are cured by traditional treatments. The genetic treatments came after patients had gone through surgery alone or chemotherapy and surgery. Dr. Robert Conry, co-investigator with LoBuglio, said if the vaccine proved successful through expanded studies, it might be available for clinical use after five years. But, he said, many more safety and reliability studies are needed. Scientists' expanding knowledge of the body's immune system has been critical in development of the new treatments, Conry said. This information ``is allowing us to, in a more informed way, develop vaccines for infectious disease as well as tumors,'' he said. The vaccines could help doctors ``harness the potential of the immune system'' to treat cancers, Conry said. ``Since these vaccines have little or no side effects, it will provide a welcome alternative to chemotherapy, which has significant side effects.'' Cancer develops from the uncontrolled growth of cells within the body. Normally, the body's immune system would destroy disease, but cancer, because it developed from the body's own cells, goes undetected. To trick the immune system into attacking the colon cancer cells, scientists enlisted the help of the virus used to eliminate smallpox, the vacinia virus, and a protein called carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Scientists found a way to use insect cells to safely produce the CEA protein. The smallpox vaccine with the CEA protein genetically added to it triggers an immune response to malignant cells. The scientists' goal is to prevent recurrence of colon cancer by destroying remaining cancer cell ``floaters'' that are left circulating in the body after surgery. In the breast cancer research, scientists will be using a genetically engineered vaccine to both produce an immune response to breast cancer cells and eradicate cancer cells. One woman has been selected to soon begin the anti-tumor vaccine pilot study, and cancer center officials hope to include 30 women in the trial. The women must have breast cancer that has spread, but that is responding to hormonal treatments, said Janis Zeanah, a spokeswoman for the cancer center. Women will be injected with a vaccine containing the CEA protein. Scientists hope that it will cause the immune system to respond the same way as it has in the colon cancer test and destroy the cancerous cells.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Congressional fellows are an integral part of our business here on Capitol Hill. They come from throughout the executive branch and bring a wealth of expertise and perspective to their work. The most recent fellow to serve in my office was not only an outstanding addition to the staff for nearly 2 years, but was rather unique to us in that she was a major in the U.S. Marine Corps. She was also a dedicated mother of two, and became affectionately known among the staff as ``Major Mom.'' Maj. Debra Biely is a dedicated, intelligent, and extremely articulate professional who quickly became a valued and trusted member of my legislative staff. As a military LA, she worked on the full range of issues relating to national defense and the space program. Her years of experience as a Marine officer, together with her in-depth understanding of the programming and budgeting process, were always evident in the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of her work. Major Biely always provided me and my permanent staff with sound, thoughtful analysis of often complex national security issues. She briefed me on such issues as United Nations peacekeeping efforts, the use of Armed Forces in Bosnia, the Marines in Somalia, and the operational control of American forces in international coalitions. I learned to completely trust her judgment. She often represented me in meetings with constituents, defense contractors, veterans groups, and military program managers. In so doing, Debra was an impressive representative of the Marine Corps to a broad spectrum of people, both within and outside the Government. She is an excellent writer and researcher. Debra's work during the 1993 Base Closure Commission hearings proved invaluable as she helped prepare me to protect the Nation's only live-agent chemical training facility. She assisted in getting several major programs through the authorization and appropriations processes. Yes, Maj. Debra Biely is the consummate military professional, and conducted herself as such while serving in my office. But she is also a warm, friendly, and outgoing person, who come to be emulated by the rest of my staff. This ``Major Mom'' is also thoroughly and completely devoted to her husband and children, and we often marveled at how she could do such a superb job in the office and still devote so much of herself to her family. She was also a tremendous follower of current events, and often was the first to know of major stories in the news. I should add that ``Major Mom'' only recently completed her master of business administration degree. She truly is one of those modern women who manage to do it all and do all of it well. Perhaps what we will remember most about Debra's work, and what I personally appreciate the most, is her leadership in the battle to save the International Space Station. She proved to be a committed and tireless worker on this important cause. Her persistent efforts helped pave the way for an overwhelming vote of support for the station in this body. She was recognized by Vice President Gore for her efforts in this regard. In short, we were fortunate to have Debra on our staff, and, frankly, I wish she could have stayed longer. Her demonstration of loyalty, integrity, and commitment all reflected well on the U.S. Marine Corps, indeed on the entire Armed Forces of our country. Major Biely is a shining example of the quality and professionalism that characterize the ranks of our military personnel today, as well as a significant reminder of the important role that women play in our national defense.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of the resolution calling for a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. It appears that in the next few days, the Senate will get still another opportunity to demonstrate to the American public that we are serious about deficit reduction and economic stability. The 300 to 132 bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives on January 26--12 more than what was needed--gives this resolution momentum that we cannot ignore. I think that the momentum is also given by the selection of this resolution to be labeled--No. 1. It shows that this is a top priority of this Congress. Additional momentum has been given to the consideration of this resolution by the fact that the Judiciary Committee has moved rapidly and in an unprecedented manner to bring this resolution to the floor of the Senate. Additional momentum was given in that the staff worked diligently to report this bill with a written report in just a matter of a few short days. I congratulate Chairman Hatch for his leadership in giving this momentum to bring forward to the Senate this very important resolution. When Congress passed the largest deficit-reduction package in history in August 1993, It was a clear signal that most Members have finally come to terms with the reality that something must be done to bring our national debt and yearly deficits under control. While this legislation was an important first step in the long road toward a balanced budget, it was just that: a first step. We know that reducing the deficit is important in the short term. But if we are going to ensure a stable economic future for our children and grandchildren, these deficits must be completely eliminated in the long term. That is precisely the goal of this resolution to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. I wish that the U.S. Congress had the discipline as an institution to take the steps necessary on our own to eliminate the deficit without having to resort to such drastic action. But as we all know, that fiscal discipline and will power simply are not there. We tried it with the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings approach and we had to give in, at least some gave in regard to that. The bottom line is clear: Fiscal responsibility should and must be dictated by the Constitution. Congress has made attempts in the past to bring the budget under control, only to see them compromised away when the momentum shifted to another issue, or another crisis. We have the momentum on our side once again. It is important that we seize that momentum, submit approval of this important amendment to the States, and finally put into place a mechanism by which our economic health will no longer be subject to the shifting currents of the day. We will know, first and foremost, that our budget priorities must be formulated under the dictates of our cherished Constitution. This amendment will provide the teeth we need to balance the Federal budget. Since coming to the Senate, I have supported and advocated a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was the first piece of legislation I introduced as a first-term Senator in 1979, Since then, the first bill I have introduced at the beginning of each new Congress--including the 104th--has been the balanced budget amendment. Passage of this legislation has come close before. During the 97th Congress, a measure was passed with 69 votes in the Senate, but failed to garner the two-thirds necessary in the House of Representatives. In the 99th Congress, after extended debate, passage in the Senate failed by only one vote. Just 1 year ago, the Senate narrowly defeated this legislation by a vote of 63 to 37, only 4 short of the 67 required for passage. I believe that it would have passed at that time, if the House had not previous to that voted not to pass the resolution. Now, in the 104th Congress, we have seen a series of political and fiscal developments that make the chances of passage greater than at any other time. The overwhelming vote in the House on January 26 gave the amendment even greater momentum. The ever-increasing concern to do something about the deficit is intense. Our national debt is on the mind of every person who thinks about America's future. For much of our history, a balanced budget at the national level of Government was a part of our ``unwritten 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. And neither political party has a monopoly on virtue here: these fiscal policies have been pursued with equal fervor by Republicans and Democrats. I have used the Thomas Jefferson quote on budget deficits before during debates on this amendment, but it is worth mentioning again. He warned, ``The public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared by a republican government.'' Over the course of time, we have lost sight of Jefferson's warning. Some argue that if we possessed and practiced stronger discipline as a legislative body, then such an amendment would be unnecessary. As I said before, I do not dispute that sentiment, only its reality. The last balanced budget we had was under President Lyndon Johnson. The last 18 years or so indicate collective resolve. Rather, it is the institutional structure of Government that encourages short-term responses to problems instead of a focus on the greater good and the future. There is no doubt about what our responsibilities as national leaders are. There is also no question as to what the American people want and deserve. There is a question as to whether the Congress will respond affirmatively by accepting this challenge. We have the momentum and the opportunity to finally stop mortgaging the future and saddling our children with unconscionable debts. I look forward to the debate in the coming days. I hope we will find the strength and determination to do what we know must be done in order to restore our economic health. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, many of you may have heard that James T. Fleming, a longtime administrative assistant to Senator Wendell Ford passed away recently. I had the opportunity to get to know Jim quite well after coming to the Senate. Because of his vast knowledge of the political field, many looked up to Jim and looked to him for advice on a host of issues. His boss stated Jim was ``one of the smartest people [he'd] ever known.'' It is no wonder he achieved a great deal of success over his lifetime. College. After graduating, he was commissioned a lieutenant in the Navy and served in the Pacific during World War II. Jim then went on to get his master's in political science at the University of Kentucky. It was there that he developed his love for politics. His political career got off to a start upon joining the legislative research commission staff in 1944. He later became the Kentucky General Assembly's top administrator and director from 1963 to 1972. Jim served as staff director in the 1960's for Gov. Edward T. ``Ned'' Breathit. I believe this is worth mentioning since it was around this time the Governor tried to revise the State's constitution. Jim was one of the masterminds behind the project. Just a few years later, Jim devised a plan on which the modern general assembly is based. In 1973, Jim was in charge of reorganizing the executive branch of government. This is a noteworthy because it was the first time such an attempt had been made since 1936. When Wendell Ford won a Senate seat in 1974, Jim followed him to Washington as his administrative assistant. Here, he planned and coordinated Senator Ford's legislative staff. The issues he focused on most while an AA were those involving energy and coal. Up until his last days, he was an adviser to Senator Ford. The Nation and our friend Senator Ford lost a very respected and intelligent man when James passed away. My deepest condolences go to Jim's son Michael Fleming, and daughter, Dr. Barbara Fleming Phillips.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Alabama and the nation lost a prized citizen when Dr. Luther Foster, former president of Tuskegee University, passed away last November. Luther was known for being intellectual, involved, and achievement- oriented. His hard work and dedication to his studies earned him several degrees and honors from several institutions. He was known by many through the numerous organizations with which he affiliated himself. His qualities led to the type of career and accomplishments many only dream of. Dr. Foster received his bachelor's degree from Virginia State College, now known as Hampton Institute, his MBA from Harvard University, and his doctoral degree from the University of Chicago. His honorary degrees include doctorates of civil law, humane letters, and public service. Dr. Foster was a member of the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission; the Commission on Critical Choices for America; the Council on Financial Aid to Education; the National Advisory Committee on Black Higher Education and Black Colleges and Universities; the President's Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Exchange; the President's General Advisory Committee on Foreign Assistance Programs; the President's Task Force on Priorities in Higher Education; Resources for the Future, and the U.S. Air Force Academy Advisory Council. In addition, he directed the Center for Creative Learning; the March of Dimes; Norton Simon, Inc.; the Overseas Development Committee; Political and Economic Studies; the Retirement Equities Fund; the United Negro College Fund, and Sears, Roebuck and Co. He also chaired the Association of American Colleges and the Race Relations Information center. Dr. Foster served as the budget officer of Howard University from 1937-41. He later relocated to the Tuskegee Institute where he served as business manager from 1941-53. He was then named president of Tuskegee in 1953 and held this position for the next 28 years. At the time of his death, he was chairman and CEO of Robert R. Moton Memorial Institute. Dr. Foster was a highly intelligent man who was not only known for his scholarly abilities, his many affiliations, or even his lifetime accomplishments. He was most known for his ability to touch the lives around him in meaningful ways. My deepest condolences go out to his wife of 53 years, Vera Chandler Foster of Alexandria, and their entire family in the wake of this tremendous loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I spoke earlier this month about the untimely death of Dr. Archie H. Carmichael III, a distinguished physician from the shoals area of Alabama, which includes Muscle Shoals, Sheffield, Florence, and my hometown of Tuscumbia. Dr. Carmichael truly epitomized the high ideals which constitute the medical profession. He was a dear friend to many, including his patients, who he served so diligently for over 30 years. He had a remarkable bedside manner and his patients highly respected him. In short, he was the type of rare individual who can never really be replaced. He had patients from all over northwest Alabama, northeast Mississippi, and southern Tennessee and will be genuinely missed. Upon learning of his death, Tuscumbia mayor Ray Cahoon remarked that ``Archie Hill had done a really great job of serving his community as a physician. He was really well-loved. He was already missed by many because he had to cease his practice due to his illness.'' One of his medical colleagues said that he had always treasured his professional and personal association with Dr. Carmichael, and noted that he had loved his work and his patients and had always put them before his personal concerns. He was known as a very pleasant person to work with and a dedicated professional. Archie Hill Carmichael was an all-state football player from Deshler High School who received a football scholarship to attend the Georgia Institute of Technology. Later, however, the young athlete gave up his football career due to his mother's urging, and finally his own decision, to pursue a career in the field of medicine. He subsequently took his bachelor of science and medical degrees from Vanderbilt University, to which he had transferred from Georgia Tech, and completed his residency in internal medicine at Bowman-Gray Medical School at Wake Forest University. He served in the U.S. Naval Medical Corps for several years. He practiced medicine in Sheffield, AL for 31 years and served as an adjunct professor of medicine at the University of Alabama Medical School for a while. Dr. Carmichael married Ann Cothran, and they had two children, Lawrence Carmichael, M.D., and Beth Carmichael Riley. Ann Cothran Carmichael predeceased her husband by several years, and he then married Jean Pigford Cleveland. They had a son, Archie Hill Carmichael IV. He was a great family man, a dedicated father, and devoted husband From a very distinguished family including his grandfather, former Member of Congress Archie H. Carmichael--Archie Hill III, added much to his family's legacy. His Congressman grandfather was succeeded in the House by my own predecessor in the Senate, the legendary John J. Sparkman. Dr. Carmichael had retired due to a serious illness, and passed away on January 4, 1995. At the time of his retirement, he practiced as a specialist in internal medicine with his longtime partner, Dr. R. Winston Williams. He was a member of First United Methodist Church in Tuscumbia; the Colbert County Medical Society; the Medical Society of the State of Alabama, and the American College of Physicians. I extend my sincerest condolences to Jean Carmichael and his entire family as they lament this tremendous loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Ms. Nancy Stilson, Chief, Documents Reference Librarian at the Redstone Scientific Information Center on the occasion of her retirement from Government service. Ms. Stilson began her Government service career in Huntsville at Redstone Arsenal 41 years ago. She has worked in the documents section of the Redstone Scientific Information Center throughout her career. Her knowledge of the weapon and missile systems developed for the U.S. Army have ranged from those developed in the early 1950's up to the present time. Ms. Stilson has the respect and admiration of her customers who are scientists and engineers for the U.S. Army Missile Command. Indeed Ms. Stilson, through her experience, has the equivalent of a Ph.D. in missile technology as her customers can attest. When scientific and technical information is needed, Ms. Stilson has been the ``one stop shop'' for such information. Ms. Stilson has provided scientific and technical information to those designing, building, and fielding the Army's weapons and missile systems. In fact, if you could design an illustration of the components of the missile system, Ms. Stilson would figure prominently in the section dealing with technical information. Through her career she has served both distinguished scientists such as Dr. Warner Von Braun, as well as bench scientists and engineers creating the nuts and bolts of missile components. During Ms. Stilson's tenure, the scientific and technical library community advanced to the capability of supporting the highly technical and complex Army that exists today. She heavily influenced the evolution of the international collection of missile and rocketry that exists at the Army's premier technical library, the Redstone Scientific Information Center. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to congratulate Nancy Stilson on her retirement and to thank her for many years of dedication and service to the men and women of the U.S. Army.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the newspaper USA Today recently initiated an ongoing series of articles spotlighting schools and educational programs in the country that are both innovative and successful. The first venture to be included in the series was the Builders Club at I want to congratulate the teachers involved in this unique community-service program and all the students at Greenville who participate in the Builders Club. They are setting an example that schools all over the Nation can follow. I ask unanimous consent that the USA Today article on the Builders Club be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to endorse this proposal to name the next aircraft carrier, CVN-76, the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. I believe this would be a fitting tribute to a great man and a great President. Ronald Reagan was elected the 40th President of the United States on November 4, 1980. Central to President Reagan's agenda was the defeat of communism and the rebirth of America as a ``beacon of hope for those who do not have freedom.'' He therefore made the buildup of the Nation's Armed Forces, which began under President Carter, his No. 1 budget priority. Two defensive weapon systems, in particular, have become synonymous with the Reagan administration. First the President announced in his historic 1983 address to the Nation. It was the work of scientists and engineers in Huntsville and California that convinced President Reagan to endorse research on missile defenses, and I am proud of the leadership role that Huntsville has continued to play in this regard. The second weapon system associated with the Reagan administration was the MX missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile was the cornerstone of our ICBM modernization program and it, together with SDI, can be credited with convincing the Soviets to begin serious arms control talks. In fact, by the end of the Reagan's second term the START talks has begun and we had signed the Intermediate Nuclear Force [INF] Treaty which eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles. It should be noted that the INF Treaty led to the first actual reduction of nuclear missiles in history. In retrospect, many credit the Reagan arms buildup with the eventual bankruptcy and collapse of the Soviet Union. While I believe the main causes of the collapse were the inherent flaws of communism, the arms race certainly played a major role and the President does deserve praise for his steadfast commitment. In his own words, Ronald Reagan's hope was to ``go down in history as the President who made Americans believe in themselves again.'' He was successful. He reminded us of our glorious past, that we were in a nation founded on the principles of freedom and democracy. He took world leadership on the issues of the day and reassured us we were still the greatest nation on earth. Finally, through his philosophy of peace through strength, he held the forces of communism at bay and set the ground work for their eventual defeat, giving us new hope in the future. Mr. President, aircraft carriers are the pride of the U.S. Navy and are floating symbols of our national strength and conviction. Five times before we have named an aircraft carrier after a President, with the last being the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan also deserves this honor. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this tribute to President Reagan.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to revisit an issue that I addressed in the last Congress, the problem of unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments. I have always been generally opposed to unfunded Federal mandates on States and localities, and I introduced a bill in the last Congress to address this problem, Senate Resolution 69. Revenue sharing, in my judgment, was an excellent program. Unfortunately, it was terminated. But nevertheless it provided funds to local and State governments to carry out mandates that were imposed on the States and local governments by the Federal Government. This is not to say that all the mandates have been bad. I think there have been a number that have been good. We have generally followed the carrot approach relative to mandates by saying that if certain programs were adopted, then the Federal Government would come forward with revenues to assist them. The November Elections have given advocates of ending unfunded mandates momentum, so I am confident that Congress will soon pass legislation addressing this issue once and for all. I believe the proper vehicle for achieving this goal at this time is the bill that we are now debating, S.1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, of which I am an original cosponsor. I think the fact that it was designated as S. 1 indicates the priority that was given to it by the sponsors and the leadership. They wanted local that this was a top priority on the part of the U.S. Senate. As you know, because of the new federalism mood which prevailed in the 1980's, responsibility for the provision of several public services was shifted from the Federal Government to the State and local governments in an effort to shrink the size of the Federal Government. In some instances, the Federal Government simply failed to provide public services, creating a void that State and local governments had to fill; while in others it mandated that State and local governments and businesses fulfill them--without providing the necessary funds to finance their implementation. When I use ``business,'' I use it in a broad sense to include farmers and self-employed people. At the same time these responsibilities were shifted from the Federal Government to State and local governments, funding from the Federal Government to States and localities was cut dramatically. As a result, State and local governments have been given additional responsibilities but less funding with which to carry them out. The magnitude of the costs to State and local governments of complying with unfunded Federal mandates is staggering. Recent surveys estimate that the most Federal mandates are currently requiring annual expenditures of $11.3 billion by cities and counties, and that the cumulative costs over the next 5 years are expected to total $88 billion. Cities and counties reported that the costs of complying with these mandates consumed an average of 12 percent of their locally raised revenues. The U.S. Conference of Mayors surveyed 314 cities regarding the costs of complying with 10 specific mandates affecting cities. The current year costs were found to be $6.5 billion. Three Alabama cities were included in the survey: Birmingham, Gadsden, and Huntsville. By way of providing an example of the costs of compliance to localities, the total costs of complying with these unfunded mandates for fiscal year 1993--the last year for which figures are available--were as follows: Birmingham: $2,445,300; Gadsden: $373,000; and Huntsville: $9,076,087. Likewise, the National Association of Counties surveyed 128 counties across the country and found that counties are spending an estimated $4.8 billion annually to comply with 12 specific Federal mandates. In a federal system of government, such as ours, it does not make sense for one level of government, such as the U.S. Government, to dictate how other levels of government spend their locally collected taxes. This violates the basic principles of a federal system of government in which the various levels of government are autonomous units of government, independent in their sovereignty and subordinate not to other levels of government, but to the Constitution and ultimately to their citizens. The recent trend toward dictating unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments is not consistent with traditional American federalism and has therefore caused serious strains between the various levels of government in our federal system as these mandates have been passed down. Instead, a policy of reliance on unfunded mandates is consistent with a unitary form of government, such as Great Britain's, in which all authority is in the hands of the central or national government and local governments are subordinate, and can be considered branches, in effect, of that central government. Therefore, resolving this issue is not just a matter of providing much needed assistance to our State and local governments by reducing the burden of unfunded mandates. It will also serve the larger purpose of restoring American federalism by reestablishing the proper balance between the levels of government in our federal system. I hope my colleagues will support S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It will promote greater accountability and responsibility on the part of Congress with regard to the Federal Government's impact on State and local governments, and will therefore serve to restore the integrity of American federalism by ending the scourge of unfunded mandates. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it is a sad day for the Senate, a sad day for the Nation, when we find out we will be losing a Member of the U.S. Senate who has contributed so much to this body as an institution and to this Nation as a whole. We do not use the word ``statesman'' very often. I grew up hearing it much more frequently than I hear it today. I think we look at certain areas of expertise and accomplishment and we realize that there are statesmen in those fields, as well as from a generalist viewpoint. I look back over the career of Bennett Johnston and I remember when I came to the Senate, this Nation was in an energy crisis. We were talking about shortages and what had to be done. I remember President Carter's speech with his sweater. But Bennett Johnston stood out in those days as a voice of reason, calling for an energy policy that was really very detailed, but was accompanied by great reasoning. His energy policy prevailed over the years, and we weathered that crisis. As we have gone through the changes relative to energy policy and the relationship of nuclear energy, Bennett Johnston has always come forward with expertise, with reason, and with a view toward the future and has accomplished tremendous feats in regard to the energy field. He had the unique position of serving as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the subcommittee dealing with energy and water development of the Appropriations Committee. It is very unusual for a person to occupy those two positions simultaneously, but because of his expertise and seniority and his choice, he selected those. And I think the Nation has been the beneficiary as a result of it. His State of Louisiana has greatly benefited from his service. I consider Bennett a conservative, a progressive conservative. He is a southerner. We have pretty well agreed on most issues, as Sam Nunn mentioned a while ago. And he has really taken on a great deal in his political life, in taking on certain tasks that other people would attempt to evade and to avoid. He has had to fight bigots. He has had to fight those who were intolerant. He has moved forward in the South toward having improved race relations and has been a great voice of reason in pursuing that particular task. And the South today has many benefits that really resulted from his leadership. He has been a wonderful family man. I think Sam spoke about that, the fact that he has a delightful, wonderful, charming wife, Mary, and four children: Bennett, Hunter, Sally and Mary. They are great examples of a family and to the fact that there are such close ties among them. He has been one of those who have advocated, as we all agree that we should, an improved quality of life in the Senate in order that we spend more time with our families. He and David Pryor have been voices that have sounded forth many times on the improvement of the quality of life in the Senate. Hopefully, our new minority leader will agree and hopefully he can influence our majority leader a little bit toward following the advice that Bennett Johnston has given in the past relative to this. He loves this institution and he has really done a great deal. I stop and think of all he has done. Sometimes you do not belong to the respective committees, but he has been a tremendous spokesman for southern agriculture. I look back upon many of the battles we have had relative to agriculture and know that his voice has been the voice of a champion, pertaining to those issues. Then, in foreign affairs, he would come back from his trips--I can remember him many times talking about the Pacific rim and its great future and the fact that we needed to develop better relationships with the Pacific rim nations because much of the future would lie there, and the progress that has taken place in recent years pertaining to this. (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.) So we with great sadness see the announcement of the departure some 2 years from now of a statesman in the field of energy, a statesman in the field of race relations, a statesman who has done much for this Nation. We will have lost a great Senator. We are now losing a great chairman, but nevertheless he will continue as a spokesman in his particular fields. But he has also served in so many other different ways on the budget, in the field of aging, and in the field of intelligence, having served in committees in that capacity. We salute Bennett. I think maybe the real reason behind this is that he is feeling that he is getting a little older, that he is not as accomplished a tennis player as he used to be, and that his colleague, John Breaux, is now beating him more often than he used to. Perhaps that might have affected his decision relative to this matter. But we look forward to his, as he leaves and when he leaves the Senate, continuing to give us advice, counsel, and we know he will continue to be a friend. I say to him, my friend, that this is a sad day for America and for the Senate. But we respect his decision. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Heflin pertaining to the introduction of Senate Joint Resolution 13 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise for a point of personal privilege to lament the death yesterday of Dr. Archie H. Carmichael III, of Tuscumbia, Sheffield, and Muscle Shoals, AL. He was a very distinguished physician. He was an internist. Dr. Carmichael graduated from Vanderbilt Medical School and practiced for many years in the Shoals area of Alabama. His grandfather, Archie H. Carmichael, served as a Member of Congress. He comes from a very distinguished family in Alabama. It is sad that he has passed away. At some later date, I will have more to say about Dr. Carmichael. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I will be at committee hearings on the balanced budget amendment shortly, but I would like to oppose the Harkin amendment. It is my judgment that the rules have been effective over the years and I do not feel that we ought to change the rules pertaining to cloture and the right of extended debate. We sometimes have different alignments pertaining to membership relative to our parties and therefore Senate rules affect us. The rule regarding the right to extended debate can be a two-edge sword at times, and I do not believe it should be changed. But, in my judgment, the Senate is a deliberative body and the Senate ought not just be a smaller House of Representatives. I think that the present rules are operating effectively. I add my voice to those that are advocating that we continue with the present rule that we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as in morning business, I would like to introduce legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution to require the Federal Government to achieve and maintain a balanced budget. I have introduced in each Congress, at the beginning, a similar joint resolution during the time that I have served in the U.S. Senate. I might say that the first bill, or resolution--the first legislative act that I introduced when I came to the Senate was to introduce a bill for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget. I believe the opportunity to adopt this legislatively and to submit it to the States for ratification is now at hand. In 1982, the Senate debated it at great length and a vote was taken and there were 69 votes. As Members of the Senate know, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget requires a two-thirds vote. So there were two additional votes over the required number back in 1982. Since that time, we have had three votes in the Senate relative to the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. One year there was one vote shy, which was 66 votes. And then on another occasion we got 63 votes. In each of the occasions in which the Senate has acted pertaining to the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, the House has failed to pass it by the required two-thirds vote. But this time I believe the House will pass it. Regarding the last time when we got 63 votes, I believe if the House had not acted before the Senate, the Senate would have voted the required two-thirds vote at that time. This measure has been around for a long time. It has narrowly missed its mark in the past, but I believe it will meet the mark of a two-thirds vote in the Senate and in the House this year. It is also particularly important that we go ahead and act now. Interest rates are going up. A major portion of the rates were to double, then you can see that the amount of money that will be required to pay debt service will be doubled also. And so it is important that we go ahead and act soon to provide the necessary fiscal discipline. It has been 33 years since the Government of the United States has operated on a balanced budget. Most of the States have provisions that require a balanced budget, and it provides the discipline which is needed relative to Government operations and fiscal restraint. So it is my pleasure again today to offer a bill or resolution which is quite similar to the resolutions which I am cosponsoring with other Senators, including Senator Hatch. I want to congratulate Senator Hatch on his leadership in moving forward. He has a hearing set today relative to resolutions requiring a balanced budget which has a group of very distinguished Americans, a lot of former Attorneys General, and others, who will be testifying at that particular time. So I think it is important that we move forward and we move forward as fast as we can. So I send to the desk at this time a resolution requiring it. Mr. President, the time has finally come to pass this legislation and send it to the States for ratification. This amendment is not a gimmick, nor is it chicanery; it is good common sense. Since I first came to the Senate in 1979, every Congress I have introduced legislation proposing a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget, and I have dedicated myself to many years of work with my colleagues to adopt a resolution which would authorize the submission to the States for ratification of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. For much of our Nation's history, a balanced Federal budget was the status quo and part of our unwritten constitution. For our first 100 years, this country carried a surplus budget, but in recent years this Nation's spending has gone out of control. Indeed, the fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated over the years has convinced me that constitutional discipline is the only way we can achieve the goal of reducing deficits. As you know, in 1982, the Senate did pass, by more than the required two-thirds vote, a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget. There were 69 votes in favor of it at that time. It was sent to the House of Representatives, where, in the House Judiciary Committee it was bottled up. The chairman would not allow it to come up for a committee vote, in order that it might be reported to the floor of the House of Representatives. In order to bring the measure up for a vote in the House of Representatives, it was necessary to file a discharge petition. This is a petition that has to be signed by more than a majority of the whole number of the House of Representatives, and then it is brought up and voted on without amendment. The Senate-passed amendment failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds vote that was required in the House of Representatives at that time. In the 99th Congress, after extensive debate, passage of a balanced budget amendment by the Senate failed by one vote--but got 66 votes. During the 101st Congress, I supported a measure which passed the Judiciary Committee, but it was never considered by the full Senate. In the 102d Congress, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported a bill, but since an amendment failed to pass the House by the necessary two- thirds vote, this killed the possibility of favorable action by the Senate. In the 103d Congress, the Senate again narrowly defeated an amendment, which I cosponsored, by a vote of 63-37--only four votes short of the 67 votes needed for passage. If the recent elections tell us anything, it is that the American people want a leaner, more efficient Federal Government and a government that lives within its means. Mr. President, I hope the time has come to finally adopt this long- overdue amendment and begin to move toward our goal of a balanced Federal budget. Section 1 of the amendment requires a three-fifths vote of each House of Congress before the Federal Government can engage in deficit spending. A 60-percent vote in the Senate is a very difficult one to obtain. This requirement should establish the norm that spending will not exceed receipts in any fiscal year. If the government is going to spend money, it should have the money on hand to pay its bills. Section 2 of the amendment requires a three-fifths vote by both Houses of Congress to raise the national debt. In addition to the three-fifths vote, Congress must provide ``by law'' for an increase in public debt. As I understand it, this means presentment to the President, where the President has the right to veto or sign. If the President chose to veto the bill, it would be returned to Congress for action to possibly override the veto. It is also important to note that section one, regarding the specific excess of outlays over receipts, contains this same requirement that Congress act ``by law.'' Section 2 is important because it functions as an ``enforcement mechanism'' for the balanced budget amendment. While section 1 states outright that ``total outlays * * * shall not exceed total receipts'' without the three-fifths authorization by Congress, the judicial branch would lack the ability to order the legislative and executive branches to meet this obligation. Therefore, section 2 will require a three- fifths vote to increase the national debt. This provision will increase the pressure to comply with the directive of this proposed constitutional amendment. Other than just being directory, the amendment, by way of section 2, has some teeth and that is what is so important if we are going to do away with deficit spending and operate so that we do not spend any more money than the amount coming into the government. That is what we are trying to achieve here. Section 3 provides for the submission by the President of a balanced budget to Congress. This section reflects the belief that sound fiscal planning should be a shared governmental responsibility by the President as well as the Congress. Section 4 of the amendment requires a majority vote of the whole number of each House of Congress any time Congress votes to increase revenues. This holds public officials responsible, and puts elected officials on record for any tax increase which may be necessary to support Federal spending. Section 5 of the amendment permits a waiver of the provisions for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. This section also contains a provision long-supported by myself--that of allowing a waiver in cases of less than an outright declaration of war--where the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security, and is so declared by a joint resolution, which becomes law. Under this scenario, a majority of the whole number of each House of Congress may waive the requirements of a balanced budget amendment. I firmly believe that Congress should have the option to waive the requirement for a balanced budget in cases of less than an outright declaration of war. Looking back over the history of our Nation, we find that we have had only five declared wars: The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the First World War, and the Second World War. The most recent encounters of the United States in armed conflict with enemies have been, of course, undeclared wars. We fought the Gulf war without a declaration of war. In addition, we fought both the Vietnam and Korean actions without declarations of war. This country can be faced with military emergencies which threaten our national security, without a formal declaration of war being in effect. Circumstances may arise in which Congress may need to spend significant amounts on national defense without a declaration of war. Congress and the President must be given the necessary flexibility to respond rapidly when a military emergency arises. The United States has engaged in only five declared wars, yet the United States has engaged in hostilities abroad which required no less commitment of human lives or American resources than declared wars. In fact, our Nation has been involved in approximately 200 instances in which the United States has used military forces abroad in situations of conflict. Not all of these would move Congress to seek a Congress should have the constitutional flexibility to provide for our Nation's security. Section 6 of the amendment permits Congress to rely on estimates of outlays and receipts in the implementation and enforcement of the amendment by appropriate legislation. Section 7 of the amendment provides that total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. In addition, total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal. This section is intended to better define the relevant amounts that must be balanced. Section 8 directs the amendment to take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after ratification, whichever is later. This section will thus allow Congress an adequate period of time to consider and adopt the necessary procedures to implement the amendment and to begin the job of actually balancing the Federal budget. Mr. President, the future of our Nation's economy is not a partisan issue. Furthermore, the problem of deficit spending cannot be blamed on one branch of government or one political party. Similarly, just as everyone must share part of the blame for our economic ills, everyone must be united in acting to attack the growing problem of deficit spending. I recognize that a balanced budget amendment will not cure our economic problems overnight, but it will act to change the course of our future and lead to responsible fiscal management by our national government.

Mr. HEFLIN

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

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Private Property Rights Act of 1995--a bill similar to the private property rights legislation Senator Dole and I introduced during the 103d Congress. This bill recognizes the important role the use and ownership of property plays in American society and declares the policy of the Federal Government to be one that will minimize takings of private property. The fifth amendment to the Constitution clearly provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. As such, the Dole-Heflin bill creates a method whereby the impact on private property rights is duly considered in Federal regulatory activities. Specifically, the bill will require Federal agencies to certify to the Attorney General that a taking impact assessment has been completed prior to promulgating any agency policy. The takings impact assessment must consider the effect of the agency action, the cost of the action to the Federal Government, the reduction in value to private property owners, and requires the agency to consider alternatives to taking private property. In effect, compliance with this act will not only help avoid inadvertent takings of constitutionally guaranteed rights but will also reduce the Federal Government's financial liability for such compensable takings. In closing, I believe that private property rights are the foundation of the individual liberties we all enjoy as Americans. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.