Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we were deeply saddened recently by the death of one of Alabama's most distinguished jurists, former Judge Joseph Phelps. He had only retired in January 1995 after serving as Montgomery County Circuit Judge for 18 years. During his long tenure as a circuit judge, he earned a reputation for being thorough, fair- minded, and tough, all hallmarks of an outstanding jurist. After retiring from the bench, he still handled an expedited docket. He also spent time at his farm and doing volunteer work. Judge Phelps was an outstanding leader in Alabama's judicial reform movement in the 1970's. His leadership in securing support for the passage of the judicial article and its implementing legislation was significant. He played a pivotal role in the educational effort of getting judges and lawyers, court clerks, registrars, and all court- related personnel to understand the new system. His planning, explanation, and leadership brought about a smooth transition from the old antiquated system to the new one. Alabama will always be indebted to him for his many contributions to a vastly improved judicial system. Judge Phelps was appointed as a special circuit judge in 1976, then elected in his own right later that year. Prior to that, he helped found law awareness programs in Montgomery schools and served as dean of the Jones School of Law from 1968 to 1972. A 1958 graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, Judge Phelps served as an assistant attorney general from 1958 to 1961, as an assistant city attorney from 1969 to 1973, and as acting dean of the State's judicial college from 1978 to 1979. As one writer said so well of Joe Phelps, ``It speaks volumes of this man that even though he was a successful lawyer and a highly respected circuit judge, he will be remembered--and missed--for the great good he did for his community and State. He was one of Montgomery's greatest natural resources.'' He was active in several organizations, including Strategies to Elevate People, Success by Six, and the YMCA. In 1990, the Alabama State Bar Association bestowed its highest honor on him when it awarded him the Judicial Award of Merit. Judge Joe Phelps will long be remembered for his love, faith, commitment, and fairness. He will also go down as one of the best circuit judges to ever serve in Alabama. I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife, Peggy Black Phelps, and their entire family in the wake of this tremendous loss. I ask unanimous consent that a Montgomery Advertiser article on Judge Phelps be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Kentucky and others in introducing the Textile and Apparel Global Competitiveness Act. This important legislation addresses a problem of grave consequence in my State and others where the textile and apparel industry has been hurt dramatically in recent years due to job relocation and factors resulting from the enactment of NAFTA and GATT. This bill does nothing to undo these agreements, but it does go a long way toward strengthening protections for the textile and wearing apparel sector of the economy and the millions of workers affected by the changes which are occurring. This legislation requires the U.S. Trade Representative, when negotiating textile agreements with nations who are not members of the World Trade Organization to secure effective market access for American textile and apparel producers. It includes provisions allowing penalties for noncompliance with these market-access agreements under WTO rules and U.S. law. Furthermore, it creates a special 301 list for market access for these products and requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue a report to Congress each year that outlines the economic contribution of the American textile and apparel industries. While the industry enjoys broad support in Congress and in the administration, it has been the target of aggressive attacks during the last several years. Most of these attacks have been thwarted, but they have come at a time when the textile and apparel industry is undergoing major transformation as it pushes to increase productivity and to become more global in its perspective and methods of operation. The American textile and apparel industry is seeking to make a successful transition to a quota-free environment within a 10-year timeframe. This transition must have the safeguards provided by this measure in order to allow the industry to realize that success. I congratulate Senator Ford for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Textile and Apparel Global Competitiveness Act.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. This amendment would help assure that the creation of a new management office within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization does not result in a centralized bureaucracy at the expense of vital ballistic missile defense capabilities built up over the years across the United States. Concerns about Pentagon centralization have resulted in the Defense Appropriations Committees limiting funds made available for relocations of DOD organizations, units, activities, or functions into or within the National Capital Region. This has been the case in the past and it is again the case in the pending Defense appropriations bill. Another concern has been the use of support contractor services and consultants to escalate centralization in Washington. In 1992, Senator Pryor found an alarming trend of contractor growth in support of the BMDO predecessor organzation, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization [SDIO]. His amendment, accepted without opposition, capped the amount of money which could be expended for the procurement of support services for the central SDIO activity. Its intent is still relevant today. Those concerns about DOD centralization are founded on traditional beliefs that government works best when it is not all collocated in the Capital region. Centralization of government and contractor personnel results in higher costs. Relocation of functions loses unique capabilities now available through military services and thus creates greater inefficiencies and schedule losses due to the necessity to retrain and replace technical and managerial personnel. The purpose of this amendment is to clearly establish that the implementation of the NMD JPO decision must continue to be consistent with the assurances we are being given by the Pentagon. The Acting BMDO Director, Adm. Dick West, has just met with our staffs and discussed the organizational details of the new Joint Program Office, as it is now planned. He foresees a central organization of 64 or thereabouts, supported by those on-going activities in the field who have been developing such elements as the interceptor and ground-based radar. At present, these are basically all in the Army sphere of responsibility since the Air Force Space and Missile Tracking System Program is an Air Force program and will not be under the new office, and the Navy has no current role in NMD. Admiral West is convincing in his assurances that those activities which have been so beneficial to the progress in ballistic missile defense in the past will not be adversely impacted by this new central office. Concurrently, a BMDO ``Point Paper'' has included the following assurances: The decision to manage NMD using a Joint Program Office (JPO) does not change the fundamental execution of the program. The basic building blocks remain the same and will be developed by the organization already assigned those responsibilities. Contracts that have been awarded will be executed as planned. The Service organizations that have had responsibility for NMD will continue to play the same role. As the program approaches a deployment decision, the role of the services will increase significantly. Even with this assurance, I believe this amendment is necessary to clearly reflect the intent of Congress for the benefit of Admiral West's successor and those further down the organizational ladder responsible for the implementation of the various components of the new activity. These are important times for the National Missile Defense Program, when with additional funding and emphasis, Congress has great expectations that these investments will yield the greatest possible dividends. Continuation of the valuable contributions of the NMD activities in their field locations will be critical to that success.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Bill, $6 million was authorized for the Armored Gun System Test Program Sets. This authorization was approved due to the large shortfall in testing software for ASM programs and due the AGS system's high priority. Unfortunately, the armored gun system has since been terminated. This amendment, therefore, directs the Secetary of the Army to make this money available to fund the Bradley TOW 2 Test Program Set, a program requirement of the Army. The Army has performed a study of the cost and benefits of purchasing this test equipment for the Bradley TOW 2 system. It found that purchasing this equipment would result in dramatic savings over the existing maintenance method. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this needed reprogramming.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and my fellow Alabamian.

Mr. HEFLIN. I agree with Senator Shelby that the Air Force program is a bad idea. It is dead-end technology that would leave us with a system of extremely limited capability and no growth potential to meet a changing threat. I, too, hope that the committee has not expressed an endorsement by accepting this amendment.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that would allow the Army to type classify the electro optic augmentation system. The Army spent millions of dollars to develop this hardware but, for the lack of less than $100,000, was unable to certify the final product. I have been informed that elements of the Army wish to purchase this equipment, but cannot due to the lack of this final certification. As the use of the EOA will save the Army millions of maintenance dollars annually, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to insure that the National Guard will be able to fully use the training infrastructure of Fort McClellan. The Armed Services Committee has included a wise provision in its bill that allows the National Guard to retain certain key civilians at each installation they are gaining through the BRAC process. The committee's provision only covered training bases closed before the end of 1997. My amendment would extent this date to 1999, so that Fort McClellan would also be covered. I encourage my colleagues to support this needed change.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which will provide for the establishment of a National Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission. This concept grew out of an idea by Dr. Ruben Hanan, who chairs the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission, and Dr. Earl Potts. Each year, the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission bestows honor upon living Alabamians in recognition of their outstanding accomplishments, services, and contributions to the lives of older American citizens. The Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame was created by the Alabama State legislature in 1933, and has been very successful in inducting worthy individuals into the organization. I am delighted that Dr. Hanan and Dr. Potts came up with the idea of establishing a National Senior Citizens Hall of Fame. The National Hall of Fame will provide a forum to bestow honor and recognition upon deserving citizens for their outstanding accomplishments, services and contributions to the lives of older American citizens. Mr. President, the population of older Americans is projected to increase to 35 million by the year 2000. This means that older Americans would constitute 13 percent of the total population. As the national population is projected to exceed 300 million by the year 2000, the senior population would drastically increase with the entry of the baby-boomers in the senior population. Therefore, by the year 2030, the senior population will increase to approximately 70 million. Mr. President, the older population is growing. If we look back over the last few years, we will notice that in 1993, the age group between 75 and 84 was 10,800,000. This was 14 times larger than in 1900. Every day, more than 5,000 individuals in the United States celebrate their 65th birthday. Their mature judgment, keen insight, historical perspective, perceptive vision, and gifted leadership are invaluable to our Nation. By establishing a Senior Citizens Hall of Fame, we will have in place an organization that will recognize the contributions made by older American citizens to our Nation. I am delighted that the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission, which has contributed greatly to the well being of thousands of Alabamians, will serve as a model for this national entity. In addition, the Alabama Hall of Fame Commission has improved the quality of life of those in need, and many have served in the Retired Senior Volunteer Program. Finally, a National Senior Citizens Hall of Fame will also honor patriotic Americans for their spirit of loyalty and selfless labor in serving the needs of the people of our Nation. I urge the entire Congress to join me in the adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which will provide for the establishment of a National Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission. This concept grew out of an idea by Dr. Ruben Hanan, who chairs the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission, and Dr. Earl Potts. Each year, the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission bestows honor upon living Alabamians in recognition of their outstanding accomplishments, services, and contributions to the lives of older American citizens. The Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame was created by the Alabama State legislature in 1933, and has been very successful in inducting worthy individuals into the organization. I am delighted that Dr. Hanan and Dr. Potts came up with the idea of establishing a National Senior Citizens Hall of Fame. The National Hall of Fame will provide a forum to bestow honor and recognition upon deserving citizens for their outstanding accomplishments, services and contributions to the lives of older American citizens. Mr. President, the population of older Americans is projected to increase to 35 million by the year 2000. This means that older Americans would constitute 13 percent of the total population. As the national population is projected to exceed 300 million by the year 2000, the senior population would drastically increase with the entry of the baby-boomers in the senior population. Therefore, by the year 2030, the senior population will increase to approximately 70 million. Mr. President, the older population is growing. If we look back over the last few years, we will notice that in 1993, the age group between 75 and 84 was 10,800,000. This was 14 times larger than in 1900. Every day, more than 5,000 individuals in the United States celebrate their 65th birthday. Their mature judgment, keen insight, historical perspective, perceptive vision, and gifted leadership are invaluable to our Nation. By establishing a Senior Citizens Hall of Fame, we will have in place an organization that will recognize the contributions made by older American citizens to our Nation. I am delighted that the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame Commission, which has contributed greatly to the well being of thousands of Alabamians, will serve as a model for this national entity. In addition, the Alabama Hall of Fame Commission has improved the quality of life of those in need, and many have served in the Retired Senior Volunteer Program. Finally, a National Senior Citizens Hall of Fame will also honor patriotic Americans for their spirit of loyalty and selfless labor in serving the needs of the people of our Nation. I urge the entire Congress to join me in the adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support confirmation of Alan Greenspan's nomination to serve another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Although I have not always been completely agreeable with his policies, I think that, generally, he has struck the proper balance in monetary policy in order to stabilize prices and encourage growth short-term growth. In fact, combined with the President's deficit reduction program, Chairman Greenspan's policies helped the Nation out of its last recession. When we consider this nomination, we must realize that the most relevant indicator of Chairman Greenspan's accomplishment is the success of the economy. Because of the number of factors and variables involved in economic theory, we can stand and debate individual arguments almost endlessly. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the economy has exploded, while inflation has stabilized at its lowest rate in more than a decade. In fact, the combined unemployment and inflation rate is lower than it has been since 1968. This did not occur without leadership, and Chairman Greenspan and President Clinton deserve our applause. One of the reasons for economic improvement is the recent deficit reduction package. The deficit is an issue I have taken very seriously over the years. When I came to the U.S. Senate, the first bill I introduced was a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and I have supported it ever since. Indeed, I believe that addressing the deficit, and other fiscal problems, is the only way to cure the Nation's economy in the long term. Although I had reservations, and frankly I believe we can and should do more in the area of deficit reduction, I supported the President's 1993 budget package. This measure is among the most important fiscal steps the Congress has taken in the past decade. In fact, to use Chairman Greenspan's words, this reduction was: ``An unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'' This improvement resulted in the creation of 9.7 million new jobs, the vast majority of which are in the private sector. The last few years have seen more construction job growth than any period since the early fifties, and more auto job growth than any period since the early sixties. Further, the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent--far less than the rate during the early eighties. It is a testament to the importance of a declining annual deficit and movement toward a balanced budget. However, due to the complexity of our economy, I do not believe that the President's deficit reduction alone caused all of these improvements. According to prevailing economic theory, monetary policy is a more potent factor in the short-term growth of employment and gross domestic product than fiscal policy. Therefore Alan Greenspan does deserve a certain amount of recognition for his recession policies. Maybe it is a credit to Chairman Greenspan, however, that he has shown restraint; he has not failed to appreciate the consequences of easing his monetary policy. When the Federal Reserve Board decides to embrace an expansive policy, the economy will grow for a while. However, a greater supply of money leads to a lesser demand, or inflation. In the long term, improvements are countered by higher costs and prices, and the economy will again equalize at a reduced level, with higher inflation. In this way, the end result is a negation of the apparent gain. Therefore, monetary policy must strike the proper balance between expansion and tightening. I think Alan Greenspan has always appreciated the importance of this fundamental concept, and he has acted cautiously to enact such a balance. When the country fell into a recession in 1990, Chairman Greenspan engineered a response to the crisis by initiating a series of interest rate cuts from late 1990 to late 1991, keeping rates low through 1993. Under his direction, the Fed cut the discount rate in half; this was the lowest rate since 1962. In fact, real short-term interest rates were near zero. Chairman Greenspan said these reductions were necessary to spur economic growth, and growth did follow. His judgment has thus far been sound. However, Mr. Greenspan rightly believes that the Federal Reserve's most important goal is price stability. It is perhaps this fact which has most fueled his critics. The harshest criticism Chairman Greenspan has endured came in 1994, when he raised interest rates seven times. Politicians and financial markets concerned about continuing growth argued that Greenspan was an alarmist. Critics maintained that the boon had been insufficient to cause any serious inflation. Even if we disagree, I think we must admit that his precautions have proved reasonable. Although economic growth has slowed, Chairman Greenspan has managed to stabilize inflation at its lowest rate in more than a decade. He has also lowered interest rates again to adjust for this slowed economic growth. I would like to add that I do understand some of my colleagues reservations about Greenspan's tight monetary policy. High interest rates have been a difficult obstacle to many Americans--individuals and businesses. In fact, they are closely tied to the Nation's housing markets. They therefore affect homeowners, and they can damage financial institutions, particularly savings and loans. They have severely hurt such large businesses as Chrysler and Lockheed, and notably, they can have a terrible effect on small entrepreneurs, especially farmers, for whom I have a particular concern. However, I think it is always important to keep things in persecutive. We might understand Mr. Greenspan's record better if we consider his predecessor's efforts to reduce a staggering inflation during the early 1980's. Success came after the imposition of a seriously unpopular, tight monetary policy--a policy which concerned me greatly. When Paul Volcker took control of the Board in 1979, he convinced the Federal Open Market Committee to emphasize control of the money supply's growth, and to pay less attention to interest rates. Although he was ultimately successful in bringing down inflation, his policy, in part, caused interest rates to pass 20 percent in 1981. That was quite a cost. It hurt homeowners and businesses across the country. In fact, I became particularly concerned about the effects of these rates of farmers, many of whom were devastated by the overhead of high- interest loans. I fought to reschedule farm loans especially to ameliorate the pains suffered by small, family farmers. But at the time, I said that the Fed should not be condemned in its policy, it should be assisted by administration and Congress alike in seeking equitable remedies to fighting inflation. Inflationary controls are, after all, the Fed's most important concern. Instead of reactivity, I believed the Congress had to emphasize tax incentives, and most important, work to balance its budget. This idea has not changed in 15 years, I still believe that we must not be reactive. We must also remember Chairman Greenspan's tenture has been much less intense than Volcker's. Rather than raging total war on inflation, he has only had to act preventatively. The country is doing well, and we should not condemn the Fed--nor the man--now as we should not have condemned them then. Instead, the Congress must work to resolve its own fiscal dilemmas. As I have always believed, we, and those who follow, must work toward an enactment of sound policies that include, perhaps foremost, spending within our limits. Further, it absolutely should be considered that, although it is independent of the Congress and the President, Greenspan does not dictate absolutely over the Fed. Instead, he must achieve a consensus at the Federal Open Market Committee votes. In this regard, he has been called a genius; almost every vote during his chairmanship has been unanimous. Apparently Greenspan's colleagues also consider his judgment sound. Mr. President, I believe that we should recognize Chairman Greenspan's successes and acknowledge that he has done some good things for the American economy. His efforts contributed to an enormous recovery, and he kept inflation down during the rebound, as it his most important goal. Much to his credit, I think President Clinton recognizes Chairman Greenspan's qualities, and I think he had some good reasons to nominate him to another term. Perhaps the President's wisdom has once again led him to understand that moderation is the route to sound policy. He did not shy away from selecting a man lauded by Presidents Bush and Reagan when he believed it was the right thing to do. Mr. President, I believe the Senate should concur with President Clinton's finding that Chairman Greenspan has done a good job and confirm his nomination.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, former Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton was recently honored at a luncheon and conference here on Capitol Hill for a significant amendment he sponsored and secured passage of in 1984. The event honoring Senator Denton was hosted jointly by our colleague Senator DeWine of Ohio and Matthew:25 Ministries in Cincinnati, which operates a relief program for schools, orphanages, and clinics in Nicaragua. This amendment passed as a part of the Defense authorization bill on October 19, 1984. It allowed, for the first time, the shipment of humanitarian goods from non-profit groups free of charge on military planes on a space-available basis. These goods include school, medical, and agricultural supplies and range from hospital beds to pencils. Congress approved the legislation in order to resolve various legal questions involved in such shipments and in order to take advantage of unused space on military vessels in Central America in times of crisis. It has since been expanded to encompass most of the world, and to date, more than 10 million pounds of goods have been shipped to needy countries. In fiscal year 1995, the program was used to transport approximately 2 million pounds of humanitarian goods to 21 different countries. It is now known widely as the Denton Amendment Program. Senator Denton was a member of the Armed Services Committee while in the Senate. Groups such as Gay Construction of Decatur, AL, have used the program to ship 40,000 pounds of medical and school supplies to orphans in Albania. The Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi used it in March 1995 to send 4,000 pounds of medical supplies and clothing to a small village in the Honduras. Under the Denton program, the Department of Defense pays for the extra fuel used by its planes due to the heavier loads. The U.S. Agency for International Development pays for inspection costs, which are usually very small, and the Department of State monitors compliance of shipments to be certain they are consistent with American foreign policy initiatives. Senator Denton was once a Navy pilot who was shot down over Vietnam on July 18, 1965. He spent 7\1/2\ years as a prisoner-of-war in a camp in Vietnam. He first received national attention during a 1966 interview his captors arranged with a Japanese television station. During this interview, he defied his captors' order to condemn American policy, saying he would support the U.S. Government's position as long as he lived. He also blinked the word ``torture'' in Morse code into the camera. The message, which was picked up by Naval intelligence officers, was the first confirmation that American POW's were being beaten and generally mistreated by the North Vietnamese. Senator Denton's ordeal was documented in his book, ``When Hell Was in Session,'' which was also made into a movie. As a military pilot and naval aviator, he had seen the poverty that existed in many countries, especially in Central America. He also knew that there was often empty space on cargo flights and that pilots often made ``dry runs'' in order to maintain their edge. When he put these facts together, the idea for his amendment came rather easily. I commend and congratulate former Senator Denton for his strong leadership roles in both the Armed Forces and in the U.S. Senate. I also salute him for the tremendous sacrifices he made for his country during the Vietnam war. The Denton Amendment Program is an outstanding example of how the concern and efforts of one individual can make a real difference in the world.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we recently awoke once again to disturbing news that has become all-too-commonplace. We were told that during the night, additional southern black churches had been burned. These recent church burnings came amidst heightened national concern over the epidemic of such episodes throughout the South. As each fire is reported, we cling to the hope that what we will hear is that it was the result of an accident and not the work of some demented arsonist. The evidence, however, points away from the accidental fire. As these hateful incidents continue to occur with alarming regularity, we are reminded of some of the most terrible moments of the civil rights struggle of the 1960's. Then, homes, businesses, churches, and other property was set afire in the dark of the night by those who wanted to preserve the existing social order. Their goal was to intimidate and frighten those working legally for the causes of equality and integration. To those of us who remember those dark days and who applaud the progress which has been made in our society since then in terms of race relations, these current images of fires at churches in the early hours before dawn are profoundly disturbing and disconcerting. This is not supposed to happen in this day and age, not in the South or anywhere in this country. Such incidents remind us that such hatred is alive in the United States of America and it is directed today at the very heart of these small, rural black communities. We ask ourselves who would hate a group enough to burn its church, the spiritual and social center of the community. The forces of evil are intentionally striking at the very soul of these communities by destroying their most sacred and powerful symbols. Last week, the President said: ``This country was founded on the premise of religious liberty. It's how we got started * * * It is the cruelest of all ironies that an expression of bigotry in America that would sweep this country is one that involves trashing religious liberty. Most would agree that one of the most logical institutions or symbols for bringing different people together would be a house of worship. What better venue could there be for transcending social and cultural division than the spiritual setting provided by a church? These fires are far more than an expression of religious bigotry. The fact that these small churches are so much more to the community than simply places of worship makes the expressions of hatred even more egregious. They go beyond religion to the very essence of racial hatred. We have to ask ourselves what kind of hatred could possibly motivate individuals to destroy these symbols of a community in such a despicable manner. As the Government searches for ways to address this epidemic, including the legislative efforts which I strongly support, we have to look at the twin possibilities of a conspiracy and the work of copycat arsonists. If it is a conspiracy, the work of one isolated group or groups fanning their hatred across the South, then our task is to find the perpetrators and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Some of the evidence points to a conspiracy, such as the timing of the fires--they have all occurred in the very early hours of the morning, before day-light. As disturbing as it would be, it would be better for us as a country if the fires are the result of a conspiracy, the work of one group of individuals that does not reflect the current sentiment in this region of the country. If, on the other hand, they are the result of copycats, which is more likely the case, then we are dealing with a societal disease. Addressing such a societal ill is far more difficult and requires a much different response that goes beyond basic law enforcement. At the same time, it provides us with an opportunity to reevaluate race relations in this country and to seek new ways to improve them. As these tragic fires illustrate, some remedial attention with regard to continued progress in race relations is needed. There are some ways in which communities can be brought together because of these fires. White churches should invite their black neighbors who have lost their places of worship to come and worship with them. Black and white churches should come together in forming watches to prevent these attacks in the future. Ministers--black and white--should speak forcefully about racial equality and of the importance of honoring houses of God and keeping them sacred. These rather small but common-sense acts of neighborliness and spiritual leadership could direct more attention on where we are in terms of racial attitudes and relations. It is sad that with all the progress we have made over the last few decades, these kinds of terrorist acts still occur. Throughout my career, I have striven to promote racial harmony in my State and throughout the Nation. I am proud of the progress we have made. But, as my time in the Senate draws to a close, I am, frankly, quite disheartened that these kinds of incidents are again plaguing our society. While we do all in our power possible to stop these hate crimes, bring their perpetrators to justice, and encourage compliance with the law, we should also ask ourselves if there is more we can do as individual communities to advance the causes of equal rights and racial harmony. So, Mr. President, I support the Faircloth-Kennedy bill. I think it is an improvement over the House bill. A lot of work has gone into this. I think it approaches the situation with an investigatory device, to try to enhance the right of the FBI to investigate these terrible acts that are occurring throughout our Nation. Senator Pryor has asked me to add his name to this. I am sure there will be others. I ask unanimous consent the cosponsors' names be allowed to be entered for a period of time following this.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I also see this as an opportunity to bring further improvement in regard to race relations. Yesterday I spoke with a group of Methodist ministers. I told them this was an opportunity to extend a hand of friendship to the black members of churches that were destroyed, to endeavor to try to work with them to improve their lot in the agony they are suffering today. I think this is an opportunity. I do not know whether this is a conspiracy or whether it is a copycat situation. If it is a conspiracy, we should root out the perpetrators of this and punish them. If it is a copycat situation, then we have to try to work to remove the root cause. So, it is something I think the American people ought to be aware of, and that they ought to do everything they can to address these crimes. I fully support this bill.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we recently awoke once again to disturbing news that has become all-too-commonplace. We were told that during the night, additional southern black churches had been burned. These recent church burnings came amidst heightened national concern over the epidemic of such episodes throughout the South. As each fire is reported, we cling to the hope that what we will hear is that it was the result of an accident and not the work of some demented arsonist. The evidence, however, points away from the accidental fire. As these hateful incidents continue to occur with alarming regularity, we are reminded of some of the most terrible moments of the civil rights struggle of the 1960's. Then, homes, businesses, churches, and other property was set afire in the dark of the night by those who wanted to preserve the existing social order. Their goal was to intimidate and frighten those working legally for the causes of equality and integration. To those of us who remember those dark days and who applaud the progress which has been made in our society since then in terms of race relations, these current images of fires at churches in the early hours before dawn are profoundly disturbing and disconcerting. This is not supposed to happen in this day and age, not in the South or anywhere in this country. Such incidents remind us that such hatred is alive in the United States of America and it is directed today at the very heart of these small, rural black communities. We ask ourselves who would hate a group enough to burn its church, the spiritual and social center of the community. The forces of evil are intentionally striking at the very soul of these communities by destroying their most sacred and powerful symbols. Last week, the President said: ``This country was founded on the premise of religious liberty. It's how we got started * * * It is the cruelest of all ironies that an expression of bigotry in America that would sweep this country is one that involves trashing religious liberty. Most would agree that one of the most logical institutions or symbols for bringing different people together would be a house of worship. What better venue could there be for transcending social and cultural division than the spiritual setting provided by a church? These fires are far more than an expression of religious bigotry. The fact that these small churches are so much more to the community than simply places of worship makes the expressions of hatred even more egregious. They go beyond religion to the very essence of racial hatred. We have to ask ourselves what kind of hatred could possibly motivate individuals to destroy these symbols of a community in such a despicable manner. As the Government searches for ways to address this epidemic, including the legislative efforts which I strongly support, we have to look at the twin possibilities of a conspiracy and the work of copycat arsonists. If it is a conspiracy, the work of one isolated group or groups fanning their hatred across the South, then our task is to find the perpetrators and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Some of the evidence points to a conspiracy, such as the timing of the fires--they have all occurred in the very early hours of the morning, before day-light. As disturbing as it would be, it would be better for us as a country if the fires are the result of a conspiracy, the work of one group of individuals that does not reflect the current sentiment in this region of the country. If, on the other hand, they are the result of copycats, which is more likely the case, then we are dealing with a societal disease. Addressing such a societal ill is far more difficult and requires a much different response that goes beyond basic law enforcement. At the same time, it provides us with an opportunity to reevaluate race relations in this country and to seek new ways to improve them. As these tragic fires illustrate, some remedial attention with regard to continued progress in race relations is needed. There are some ways in which communities can be brought together because of these fires. White churches should invite their black neighbors who have lost their places of worship to come and worship with them. Black and white churches should come together in forming watches to prevent these attacks in the future. Ministers--black and white--should speak forcefully about racial equality and of the importance of honoring houses of God and keeping them sacred. These rather small but common-sense acts of neighborliness and spiritual leadership could direct more attention on where we are in terms of racial attitudes and relations. It is sad that with all the progress we have made over the last few decades, these kinds of terrorist acts still occur. Throughout my career, I have striven to promote racial harmony in my State and throughout the Nation. I am proud of the progress we have made. But, as my time in the Senate draws to a close, I am, frankly, quite disheartened that these kinds of incidents are again plaguing our society. While we do all in our power possible to stop these hate crimes, bring their perpetrators to justice, and encourage compliance with the law, we should also ask ourselves if there is more we can do as individual communities to advance the causes of equal rights and racial harmony. So, Mr. President, I support the Faircloth-Kennedy bill. I think it is an improvement over the House bill. A lot of work has gone into this. I think it approaches the situation with an investigatory device, to try to enhance the right of the FBI to investigate these terrible acts that are occurring throughout our Nation. Senator Pryor has asked me to add his name to this. I am sure there will be others. I ask unanimous consent the cosponsors' names be allowed to be entered for a period of time following this.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I also see this as an opportunity to bring further improvement in regard to race relations. Yesterday I spoke with a group of Methodist ministers. I told them this was an opportunity to extend a hand of friendship to the black members of churches that were destroyed, to endeavor to try to work with them to improve their lot in the agony they are suffering today. I think this is an opportunity. I do not know whether this is a conspiracy or whether it is a copycat situation. If it is a conspiracy, we should root out the perpetrators of this and punish them. If it is a copycat situation, then we have to try to work to remove the root cause. So, it is something I think the American people ought to be aware of, and that they ought to do everything they can to address these crimes. I fully support this bill.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Alabama's most outstanding teachers. Harriet Tyler, a sixth-grade teacher at Springwood School in Lanett, AL, was recently selected as Teacher of the Year for the State of Alabama by the Alabama Independent School Association. Harriet Tyler--a native of Decatur, AL, and a graduate of Butler High School--has influenced the lives of countless elementary students since she graduated from Auburn University in 1965. As a sixth-grade teacher, she has had the unenviable task of preparing the senior members of the playground for the traumatic transition to junior high school. Sometimes we think our work here in the Senate is difficult, but I don't think that it compares to the difficult job that Harriet Tyler has done year after year for over 30 years. Her commitment to her job, her school, and most importantly, to her students is truly inspiring. Mr. President, teachers like Harriet Tyler represent the key to America's future. As our children face the challenges of the 21st century, it is dedicated educators like Harriet Tyler who accept the challenge of turning the young people of today into the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the National Association of State Directors of Vocational Technical Education Consortium recently recognized Cooper Tools/Nicholson File of Cullman, AL, for their commitment to vocational education. I, too, would like to commend Cooper Tools/Nicholson File for their exemplary contributions to the community of Cullman, AL, in regards to vocational training. If I may, Mr. President, I would like to briefly outline some of the innovative projects Cooper Tools/Nicholson File has initiated. In 1985, Nicholson File helped the Cullman County Area Vocational Center take a giant leap toward educational excellence by adopting the school as its partner. As the first step, the company donated to the school hand tools and power equipment worth more than $254,000. In addition, Nicholson File began a scholarship program for vocational students to attend Wallace State Community College. To date, 24 students have attended the college, using gifts totaling $48,000. In 1986, Cooper Tools initiated Project PACE--Partnership To Aid Career Education. Project PACE gave selected vocational schools an unrestricted grant of $10,000 each for teacher development and recognition, student incentives and recognition, curriculum improvement or new technology, or community outreach. A national panel chose three schools to receive additional PACEsetter Awards totaling $50,000. Cullman County Area Vocational Center won an additional grant of $25,000 for a student recognition/scholarship program. In 1995, the school won a $20,000 award for curriculum improvement. ComSAVE, another collaborative venture between the school and Nicholson File was instrumental in the implementation of the tech prep initiative in Cullman County. Other efforts have led to new programs, including CAD and Computer Electronics. As you can see, Mr. President, Cooper Tools/Nicholson File has taken a very proactive approach in regards to vocational education. Cooper Tools/Nicholson File is setting a standard which I hope others will emulate.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the political world was stunned a few weeks ago when our colleague, Majority Leader Bob Dole, announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate after 36 years of representing his native State of Kansas. In his emotional and moving farewell speech, he said he wanted to campaign for the Presidency ``with nothing to fall back on but the judgment of the people and nowhere to go but the White House or home.'' Senator Dole was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1960. He came to the Senate in 1968, where he served as the Republican leader for a record 11 years. He ran for Vice President with President Gerald Ford in 1976 and ran for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and 1988. He has been a fixture of our National Government for 36 years. Regardless of what we might think of his decision to give up his life's work for an attempt at the White House, we all agree that Bob Dole has been an outstanding Senator and leader. He is a master legislator. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has called Senator Dole one of the five most significant Senators of the last half of the 20th century. That sentiment has been echoed by the Brookings Institute's Stephen Hess, who labeled him ``somebody who could get things done.'' And in Washington, especially in the unwieldy Senate, this is no small compliment. I have had the pleasure of serving with Bob Dole for nearly 18 years and know him to be an excellent legislator with an amazing ability to reach solutions to difficult and controversial issues. He is an honest and forthright man of integrity. Had he and the President been able to negotiate in good faith last fall and winter during the heated budget debate, I have no doubt they could have reached a solution which would have been good for our country and our future. Unfortunately, the House leadership would not agree to such an effort. Despite his legislative prowess, his major strengths lie in the force of his personality and his style. His power comes from his knowledge, from hard work, from his humor and from his strong friendships on both sides of the aisle, and from his rare moral authority. He does his own work and does not delegate much. He comes from a humble background, the son of a cream and egg station operator in Russell, KS. After serving in the Army during World War II, where he suffered grave and lasting wounds, he spent 8 years as a county attorney dealing with people from all stations in life. He dealt with bankers and country club members, but also with garage mechanics and feed store clerks. He has exhibited a comprehensive understanding of America as a leader for the interests of the average and disadvantaged Americans. As Senator Bob Dole--a true giant in the history of the Senate-- leaves this body, he holds so dear, to pursue the Nation's highest office, I join my colleagues in saluting him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on June 15, in Washington, there will be a race to raise money to find a cure for a disease that will take the lives of an estimated 44,560 women this year. Appropriately titled Race for the Cure, it stresses the importance of finding a cure for breast cancer, a disease that will claim one in nine women. This race is one of people who care coming together for a cause in which they believe. However, this race is much more than that. It is symbolic of the race women are running against time. The Race for the Cure represents our efforts and concern in finding a cure for breast cancer and helping many women achieve a greater peace of mind. This terrible disease affects women everywhere. Here in the United States, breast cancer is second to lung cancer in cancer-related deaths among women. However, in spite of its prevalence, we still cling to the belief that it will not happen to us or those we are close to. Chances are that someone you know and love will be a victim of this tragic disease. Chances are that someone will be your wife, mother, daughter, or sister. As with most types of cancer, a primary cause has not been found. Young women are increasingly dealing with the fear of this potentially threatening disease. Older women, who are at a much higher risk, are often not aware of their vulnerability to breast cancer. Only 34 percent of women over the age of 50 receive regular mammograms. Until a cure is found, we all must join in the effort to raise money for research and continually improve education and awareness of this disease. I am proud to say that Alabama has been a driving force in our Nation's efforts toward these goals. Advances at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, like the identification of the human natural killer cell thought to play a key role in the body's destruction of cancer cells, are vital to the discovery of a cure. The consistent support of research centers, like the Marshall Space Flight Center, which assist with and support cancer research, are crucial to our progression toward a cure. Not unlike UAB and Marshall Space Flight Center, cancer research and education facilities across the country must receive funding. This signifies the importance of the Race for the Cure which allows individuals, who are essentially helpless against cancer, to work in unison for cancer research and awareness. Having chaired the Alabama Breast Cancer Summit, I have been amazed at the aggressiveness and frequency of this disease. An article which appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association on February 9, 1994, told of how the baby boom generation have about twice the risk of developing cancer as their grandparents. The threat becomes even more imminent when one considers how quickly the percentage of elderly people in this country is growing. Even now, the risk for women is greater than before. Women born in the 1950's have almost a 3 times greater risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer than women born 50 years earlier. Some of this increase can be attributed to the improved methods of diagnosing breast cancer. However, because the trends are steady and are seen in women over 50, who receive less screening, researchers believe better diagnoses cannot explain the whole picture. The Race for the Cure is, therefore, important not only in terms of raising money for breast cancer research but also in providing a forum for awareness and education. I encourage everyone who can to participate in the Race on June 15. Also, I would like to encourage everyone in the Nation to get involved in efforts to fight breast cancer in their communities. We all have to work diligently toward a cure for this tragic disease.

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, once again I rise in support of the pending proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget. The reason is quite simple. After all of the turmoil of this past year, after all of the posturing and the pandering and the promises and the Government shutdowns, Congress and the President have not come to an agreement to balance the Federal budget. Short of a constitutional requirement, I have serious doubts that the Congress and the President will do so. Admittedly, there is some political Presidential posturing going on with this impending vote. The majority leader, who is his party's presumptive Presidential nominee, is calling up this vote knowing full well that he does not have the necessary two-thirds majority. On the other hand, the President is proudly stating to the public that his efforts in his deficit reduction plan have resulted in reducing the annual deficit from when he took office from $294 billion to nearly $130 billion this year. He has invited the majority leader to the White House for further negotiations on balancing the budget. When the majority leader leaves, I hope that the new majority leader will be extended an invitation to go to the White House and to go through negotiations and settle the differences. In actual dollars and cents, I believe that over the 7-year period there is something in the neighborhood of $12 trillion involved in the budget process, and the difference between the White House's and the Republican Party's position is only $100 billion. That is less than 0.8 of 1 percent. And that difference we ought to be able to resolve, get together and work out. However, this is a political year. We must recognize that. The Senate has just completed action on a $1.6 trillion budget resolution proposed by the majority party which seeks to balance the budget by 2002 with a combination of tax and spending cuts. I supported a proposal submitted by the President which also called for a balanced budget and would achieve a balanced budget, but contained fewer tax cuts and less cutting of the Medicare Program. However, this proposal was not adopted. The Senate and the House must settle their differences in regard to the budget figures, and then the Appropriations Committees must act, and a reconciliation bill must be passed. All of this must be signed by the President. It is going to be a long, hot summer here in Washington while the rest of the country simmers at our inaction. The budget process is not easy, as we have learned from last year. It does not guarantee that the President and the Congress will enact a balanced Federal budget. We have seen this, gone through Gramm-Rudman- Hollings and other proposals which tried to achieve a balanced budget. But all of these have come up wanting. That is one of the reasons why I feel that we need the discipline which a constitutional amendment will provide. I believe that most of my colleagues are well intentioned and want to enact balanced budgets for the benefit of generations of Americans yet to be born. Unfortunately, I have seen in my Senate career--some 18 years that I have been here--that we can often find an easy excuse for not fulfilling our commitment to deliver a balanced budget each year. There is a way out of the thicket right now in regard to the adoption of the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. A handful of Senators, I think as many as eight, have indicated they would vote for the constitutional amendment if a compromise can be reached with regard to the Social Security issue. This compromise would not allow Social Security trust fund revenues to be used when calculating whether the budget is balanced. Admittedly, this will make balancing the Federal budget more difficult because the Social Security trust fund surpluses will no longer be used to mask the true size of the deficit. A constitutional amendment will remove all doubt, regardless of whether we reach any compromise pertaining to Social Security trust funds or not. A constitutional amendment will remove all doubt, and the Federal Government will have to balance its budget. The process will still be difficult, but it will be necessary to achieve the final goal as required by this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Amending the Constitution, in my judgment, is a last-resort method which should be utilized sparingly and only when the national interest so demands. I am often asked to cosponsor worthy proposals to amend the Constitution, but I rarely do so under the test that I have just mentioned. The balanced budget amendment meets that test. The national interest demands that we act to allow the States the opportunity to ratify the proposed amendment. They may not do so. And if that is the case, then the will of the American people will have been spoken. Therein is the genius of our Nation's organic document. Ultimately, the sovereign power of the Government rests with the people. These will perhaps be my last comments--or perhaps not my last comments on this, but among my last words on this great issue. Further, the first bill I introduced when I came to Congress was a bill calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. I truly believe that on behalf of the generations of Americans yet unborn, this proposed amendment is necessary to prevent them from inheriting an even greater debt than they now most certainly will incur. Politics aside, now is the time to act, once and for all. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the long-time dean of Cumberland Law School of Samford University, Dr. Parham H. Williams, Jr., will retire on June 1, 1996. When he leaves his position at the Birmingham, AL, law school, he will have served a total of 25 years as a law school dean, 14 at the University of Mississippi and 11 at Cumberland. His tenure as a dean is such that his title has virtually become a part of his name. Even his grandchildren call him ``Dean.'' Dean Williams is widely known for his involvement in the legal community and his outstanding performance as an academician. He has strengthened Cumberland's program by recruiting a superb faculty which has added a diversity of talents and ideas. He oversaw the revitalization of the faculty through the development and implementation of sabbatical, promotion, tenure, and governance policies and procedures. The size of its entering class was decreased by 15 percent at a time when the number of applications increased over 200 percent. As a result, the average admissions criteria have been raised to new heights. The academic excellence of the law school has also been enhanced through initiatives such as increased alumni involvement; the implementation of a broad continuing legal education program; the improvement of the advocacy program; the expansion of foreign study opportunities; the development of joint degree programs; the inauguration of the master of comparative law degree; and the internationalization of the law school by visiting faculty and foreign students. Since taking over as dean on July 1, 1985, Dean Williams has helped secure a bright future for the law school by overseeing the largest funds development effort in its history. The endowment has increased from less than $1 million to over $4.2 million, resulting in 2 endowed chairs, 25 endowed scholarships, 8 annually-funded scholarships, and 6 special funds endowing lectures and other programs. The stature, beauty, and utility of the law school have been enriched by the construction of the Lucille Stewart Beeson Law Library. Dean Williams earned both his bachelor of arts and law degrees at the University of Mississippi, in 1953 and 1954, respectively. In 1965, he received his LL.M. degree from Yale University. Before coming to Cumberland, the alma mater of both his parents--class of 1925--he served as a district attorney in his native Mississippi and as an associate professor, professor, associate dean, and dean at the University of Mississippi School of Law. His academic specialties are evidence, criminal procedure, criminal law, and professional responsibility. The author of 9 law review articles and co-author of ``Mississippi Evidence,'' he has served as a commissioner of the law enforcement assistance commission and the national conference of commissioners of uniform State laws. He was chairman of the Governor's blue ribbon committee on corrections; the Governor's task force on tort reform; and the Mississippi Supreme Court advisory committee on rules. As Dean Parham H. Williams, Jr., retires, he will be remembered for bringing the Cumberland Law School into the life of Birmingham and in Alabama more than ever before. His polished, Southern, and unfailingly pleasant manner have guided his actions and helped create an image of civility and learning. I am proud to congratulate him for the impeccable job he has done and for the outstanding legacy he leaves behind.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the President's fiscal year 1997 budget plan. There is no one here that wants a balanced budget more than I do. The largest obstacle to sustainable, long-term economic growth is our huge national debt. This is why I support the administration's budget. President Clinton is the first President in 17 years to submit a balanced budget using the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] figures, all while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and cutting taxes for middle-class families. There has been no President with a record of deficit reduction that compares to President Clinton's. Under the President's leadership the budget deficit has been cut more than in half. Four years ago, the Nation was faced with a budget deficit of $290 billion. The CBO is now predicting a budget deficit of only $144 billion for fiscal year 1996. Also, the total spending is lower as a share of the economy than in any year since 1979. This budget continues the highly successful deficit reduction of the President's 1993 economic plan and contains billions in entitlement savings and discretionary cuts. The President's budget guarantees the life of the Medicare trust fund for a decade without cutting it $167 billion as the Republicans have proposed. The Republican plan reduces Medicare by $50 billion more than the President's balanced budget plan. The cuts to Medicare payments that the Republicans propose will result in cost-shifting, undermine quality, and threaten the financial viability of many rural and urban hospitals. On the other hand, the President's budget restores the pre- 1980 law on part A home health benefits because home health care expenditures unrelated to hospital stays should not be financed by the part A trust fund. This helps extend the life of Medicare part A trust fund. In summary, the President's proposal reforms and modernizes the program, while providing more choices to beneficiaries. While the President's budget has moderate cuts in Medicaid, the $72 billion reduction that the Republicans propose could be drastic. This $72 billion cut could total as much as $250 billion over 7 years if States spend only the minimum required to receive their full block grant allocations. Many middle-class families depend on the Medicaid guarantee to provide for the care of their parents. If States are forced to deny coverage or restrict benefits, this could adversely affect millions of Americans that depend on such help that the program provides. Another thing that concerns me about the Republican proposal is the insistency of the repeal of Federal enforcement of nursing home quality standards. These regulations are important to the families that have to make the tough decision to place a loved one in a nursing home. On the other hand, the President's budget provides the States with great flexibility in managing their programs while guaranteeing health care for millions of Americans. In order to reach a balanced budget, we all know decisions must be made in an effort to eliminate costs; however, these decisions must be carefully examined. This is particularly true when proposed cuts affect the educational system of our country. The Republicans want to use extreme cuts in education to balance the budget, when the President's plan shows that they are not necessary. The Republican resolution cuts education and training by $26 billion compared to 1995. The Republican plan also provides $60 billion less for education and training than the President's budget over the next 6 years. The future of our Nation depends greatly on the education that is provided to our children and the training that is available to our work force. The President's budget provides both the funding and policies needed to meet these challenges. The President's budget also provides tax relief for the middle-class working families of America, making it easier for them to pay for education and save for retirement. The President proposes a tax credit for dependent children, a benefit that would affect 19 million families, expanded individual retirement accounts [IRA's] to provided greater incentives for savings for retirement, and an education and job training tax deduction that would allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 a year for qualified education and training expenses. The President also proposes other tax relief aimed at small businesses, such as increased expensing, estate tax benefits for closely held businesses, pension simplification, and increased health insurance deductions for the self-employed. The President's budget offsets this much needed tax relief by eliminating or reducing corporate tax loopholes and preferences that are no longer warranted. Mr. President, I support the President's budget because this budget has a plan for balancing the budget while protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and education, along with providing a modest tax cut for middle-class Americans. regarding ahcpr

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, these budget proposals now being negotiated will directly affect virtually every segment of the Government and every citizen of this country. I am strongly in support of deficit reduction and favor the elimination of the national debt over a period of time. I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I supported the 1993 reconciliation bill which has already led to significant reduction in our annual deficits. However, there is a right and wrong way to pursue the same goal. There are proposals to adjust the Consumer Pricing Index [CPI] in an attempt to correct biases in its computation. This plan is to reduce the CPI by one-half of a percentage point. I feel that this is nothing more than masquerading an attempt to cut Social Security benefits and raise taxes. As we all know, the CPI has a major effect on Federal outlays, revenue, and the budget deficit. Outlays are affected because programs such as civil service retirement pay and Social Security benefits are adjusted so that the purchasing power of those payments will be preserved. Revenues are affected because taxes are adjusted so that increases in income are taxed at a higher rate only if the increase exceeds inflation. Due to the significant relationship between the CPI and the budget, there has been much attention on how to contribute to the reduction of the deficit with the adjustment of the CPI. Before we attempt to adjust the CPI, we should realize the enormous effect it will have on the senior citizens of our country. Coupled with the proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, an arbitrary reduction of the CPI, which leads to a decrease in the Social Security cost-of- living adjustments [COLA's], would take a great financial toll on the elderly. Social Security recipients rely on annual COLA's to ensure that their purchasing power is not eroded by inflation. Just a small percentage reduction in the CPI can cause a substantial loss of benefits over time. Due to the compounding effect, the older one gets, the more money the beneficiary would lose. Economists have stated that the cost of living for the elderly has risen faster than other age groups. This is due to the rapid rise in health care services. It is believed that the current CPI actually understates the rate of inflation because the elderly spend such a large portion of their income on health care. In 1987, Congress called for a study to develop an experimental index for consumers over the age of 62. This study revealed that indeed the index for this group was understated and concluded that this was due to the medical care component. This analysis was undertaken by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], the organization that computes the CPI. Moreover, now is not the time to adjust the CPI knowing that the BLS has announced, as part of a continuing effort to update and improve the CPI, that it will be changing the way the CPI is calculated. This is estimated to reduce the CPI by approximately .3 percentage points. We should allow the experts at BLS to engage in a thorough analysis without Congress interfering. Mr. President, as one economist stated, this is merely ``an attempt to raise taxes invisibly, and lower Social Security invisibly, while appearing only to be scientifically correct in adjusting a bias.'' Finally, using funds generated by reducing Social Security COLA's to diminish the deficit is a misuse of Social Security trust funds.