Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I feel like we ought to start negotiations again in regard to the budget. I think there is an opportunity to get a balanced budget now and in the immediate future. I think if we have a long recess that we will stand a chance of losing what momentum there is, and it may well be that in the near future, we can narrow the issues by adopting some of the various issues that have been agreed upon. Mr. President, for the first time in over 40 years, farm programs have been allowed to expire. As of December 31, with a few exceptions, the authority for farm programs has run out. It is the responsibility of this Congress, to pass a farm bill every 5 years or so, and create stability and certainty in rural America. Instead, with the failure of passing a farm bill, there is uncertainty, frustration and confusion in the agriculture producing areas of the country. Congress has failed in its responsibility to rural America and we must, therefore, act now to resolve this situation. What can be done at this late date, what are our options? As I see it, we have three options: First, we can do nothing and allow the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Agriculture Act of 1949, second, we can pass a stand-alone farm bill, as we should have done in the first session, or third, we can pass an extension of the 1990 farm bill, thus providing rural America with much needed certainty and allow Congress more time to write a farm bill this year. If Congress does not act, then the Secretary of Agriculture will have to exercise his responsibility to implement the Agriculture Act of 1949. Currently, market prices for wheat, corn, feed grains, and cotton are at all-time highs. However, under the 1949 act, the Secretary will be forced to implement parity prices for wheat, corn, and feed grains. For instance, wheat prices which are currently trading at $4.92 per bushel, the support price would jump to $7.82 a bushel. For corn, which is trading at $3.60 per bushel, the parity price could go as high as $5.30 per bushel. Alabama's primary crops do not include wheat or corn. However, if parity prices are implemented, Alabama and the whole Nation will also be greatly effected. Alabama is one of the leading States in poultry and catfish production. With corn and feed grain prices potentially rising as high as they are projected, it will have the effect of sending livestock feed prices through the roof. Also at stake in Alabama are dairy, beef cattle, and hog producers who will be forced to pay higher prices for their feed. This increasing cost of production does not stop with the producers. Consumers will shortly feel the effect of the failure to pass a farm bill in the form of much higher beef, poultry, pork, and fish prices at the supermarket. These examples do not even address the effects that the 1949 act and parity prices will have on the Federal Treasury. As a result, I do not support this course of action, despite its very real possibility given Secretary of Agriculture hands being tied. The second option that we have before us, is to pass a stand-alone farm bill. I am still puzzled as to why we did not pursue this course of action this time last year, rather than allowing farm policy to become embroiled in the budget reconciliation bill. I, along with my Democratic colleagues have sent a letter to the majority leader, Senator Dole, requesting that farm policy come to the floor and be debated on its own merits so that we can pass a farm bill without getting caught in the web of budget politics. I have long stated that I believe that the current structure of farm programs have served rural America, and consumers everywhere, extremely well. Therefore, it is my belief that farm programs should only be fined tuned. I do recognize that some of my less fortunate regional colleagues feel that farm programs that effect their States need greater changes than those that effect the South. The ability to resolve these differences is the purpose of debate on farm programs, which to this point there has been very little in committee, and virtually none by the full Senate. Therefore, I recommend that we return to committee and discuss the farm bill as we always have in the past. We would then be able to bring a bill to the floor that addresses all of our needs and concerns, and pass a bill that serves our agricultural producers, rural America, and consumers alike. The budget reconciliation bill contained agriculture provisions. However, the provisions contained in the reconciliation bill were never debated in committee, were not passed as part of the Senate reconciliation bill, but instead were approved in conference. Furthermore, the provisions known as freedom to farm, that ultimately ended up in the reconciliation bill, were defeated in the House Agriculture Committee. I believe that the provisions of the so-called freedom to farm bill are seriously flawed. The freedom to farm bill makes guaranteed payments to farmers whether they produce a crop or not. The freedom to farm bill offers producers a bonus check in times of high market prices, and then is not sufficient in times of low market prices. It is unconscionable to make payments to producers in times of high market prices, such as we are currently experiencing, when at the same time, we are reducing school lunches and other essential nutrition programs. Essentially, the freedom to farm bill as a phase-out of farm programs. By repealing the permanent authority for farm programs, the freedom to farm bill ends all farm programs after 7 years. I strongly believe that the core component of sound farm policy should be an adequate and certain safety net, one that provides support when market prices are low, and one that does not need to make payments when the market is up. This is how current farm programs are structured, and they work. For evidence of this, we need look no further than the recent CBO adjustment of its agriculture baseline. The CBO, after analyzing what they believe to be the future trend in agriculture prices, has determined that they expect commodity prices to remain high for at the least the next few years. As a result, the CBO has adjusted its baseline downward by $8 billion. I believe that this is evidence that farm programs work as they are designed to: provide support at times of need, and no support when it is not warranted. Therefore, while there may be an effort to resurrect the freedom to farm bill, I believe the policy contained within is inherently flawed. However, a full and open debate on farm policy will allow us to debate, consider and resolve these outstanding issues pertaining to the farm bill. This is the course of action that I strongly support. To this point in time, however, we have not been allowed to debate farm policy. Yet, farmers do not stop when the Government shuts down; they rely more heavily on Mother Nature's timetables than they do Congress' continuing resolutions. However, despite the failure to pass a farm bill, farmers must continue to prepare for the upcoming planting season. Farmers, bankers, and other support industry such as fertilizer and seed suppliers, farm implement dealers, and processors must have some certainty as to the laws that they will be farming under. In the event that we are not allowed to consider and implement a farm bill this year, and time is quickly running out, I then support the third course of action that Congress has before it: a 1-year extension of current farm policy. Extending farm programs for a period of 1 year will give rural America the much needed certainty that it deserves and allow time for Congress to act responsibly and write a farm bill this year. It is the responsibility of this Congress to let America's agriculture producers know what the program is for 1996, and we must not delay action. Cotton and peanut producers in my State of Alabama can take comfort in knowing that they will not be held hostage to the ongoing budget negotiations and Government shutdowns. The cotton and peanut programs were extended for the 1996 and 1997 crops. While I support some fine- tuning of these programs, these commodity programs will work essentially the same as they have over the past 5 years. This is certainty that producers can take to the bank. Now, all producers should quickly be given the same measure of certainty.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I believe we are closer to a balanced budget than we have been in many years. I think the public overwhelmingly wants a balanced budget. I think we are moving in that direction. But there are little problems here and there that seem to prevent us from getting together in being able to shake hands on a balanced budget. The President and the Republican leadership I think all realize that we need a balanced budget for it will certainly directly affect virtually every segment of the Government and every citizen of the country. I feel that lost in the political rhetoric over the budget is the fact that we have reached substantial agreements at this stage. We have agreed that the budget ought to be balanced in 7 years. We have agreed that CBO figures ought be controlling. We have agreed that there ought to be less Government. We have agreed that there ought to be a tax cut. And while both sides still have some major differences to work out, I feel that good-faith negotiations on these issues can yield a budget that is fair and equitable to all segments of society, and each party can claim victory. When the recess occurred, there was a statement to the effect that we were going to stop the negotiations and then come back again. There have been three or four efforts that have been made recently to try to get the parties together to start negotiating again. But for some reason or other they have been called off. Now that the recess is over, and the recess from the negotiations is over, it is time to begin again and for each side to meet and come to an agreement. The longer the negotiators avoid constructive negotiations the greater the chances for each side to become reentrenched in their policy positions. Compromise is an art that appears to have somehow been forgotten. It is apparent that in order for an agreement to be reached, both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to give and take. Each side is going to have to have some wins and each side is going to have to have some losses. If the Israelis and the Palestinians can get together and negotiate in good faith, there is no reason why the Democrats and the Republicans cannot do likewise. If the Croats, Moslems, and Serbs can agree on a cease-fire, why cannot both parties put their verbal pistols back in their holsters? I do not know exactly what the solution is. But it may well be that we may have to go to Camp David and tell them to stay there until they reach an agreement. Maybe Dayton is the place. Maybe Norway. But whatever it takes in regards to getting together and finding a location and staying with it until we reach an agreement, it seems to me to be the proper course to follow. When you add it up, the current Democratic proposals and the Republican proposals are less than $100 billion apart. Taking into account $12 trillion over a 7-year period, this figure amounts to less than .8 of 1 percent. With this in mind, it seems to me that the negotiations should proceed with an emphasis on what each side is willing to give and take in order to reach a long overdue budget agreement. The State of the Union Address will have a significant impact on the negotiations. It is a good opportunity for the President to demonstrate his willingness to reach an accord. However, if his speech is overly partisan, it can harm the negotiating atmosphere by having a hardening effect on the Republican negotiators. Likewise, the Republican response can also either help or hurt the negotiating process. Hopefully, the President will extend a hand of conciliation, and if he does, I hope the Republicans will not slap it, but instead shake it. I hope that each Senator will keep this in mind when determining exactly what he or she wants to convey, when commenting on the content of the President's speech. Each Senator must be aware that their responses may affect the overall negotiations pertaining to the budget. We need to adopt a continuing resolution--hopefully a clean one--by January 26. The expiration of the current continuing resolution, of course, runs out on that date. Despite all the heated rhetoric, I do not believe it is in the best interest of our citizens to have the remaining portion of Government closed down. A great number of the various Agencies and Departments will stay open under the legislation that has already been adopted. Taxpayers and Federal employees should not be punished, because Congress and the administration have not fulfilled their obligation to reach a budget. Mr. President, as I have stated before, I think it is imperative that we reach an agreement on the budget, and I am optimistic that when reasonable people sit down together an agreement can be worked out. It seems to me we have made a great deal of progress. We have agreed on some fundamentals: A 7-year period for a balanced budget; CBO figures; a tax cut; and a cut in Government. We just need to get together. Perhaps we need a mediator. But I hope that we will let reason prevail, and we will not let this opportunity pass to achieve a balanced budget. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield to the Senator from Alabama?

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I just want to comment on the snow, that it suits the people in Alabama and it suits the Senator from Alabama, that Vermont have most of this snow with the exception, I see as he leaves the chair, the Senator from Alaska is leaving, relative to his State. They can have all of this snow. We will take 2 inches in Alabama every 3 years and let that suffice. Otherwise, we just want to leave it to Vermont and to Alaska.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to mention the death of a dear friend of mine, Judge James A. Tompkins. He was known nationally, and attended many national Democratic conventions. He served as probate judge of my home county, Colbert County, and his father before him served as probate judge of Colbert County. After Judge Tompkins left that office, his wife served as probate judge of our county, and his son is now a circuit judge in Colbert County. I will have more remarks about that later.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I would like to also add my words about Mike Synar. He and I worked together on bankruptcy legislation as well as farm legislation. He was a great Congressman and will be truly missed.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I want to commend the Supreme Court for its activities during this storm. Monday it met and heard oral arguments. Yesterday, Tuesday, it met and heard oral arguments. It is meeting today. It perhaps has a smaller group of people who would have to gather to meet, but nevertheless they are to be commended for their activity in all of this snowstorm. I will say that on Monday I was in my office at 3 o'clock when the Senate met. The Presiding Officer now, Senator Warner, was here, and the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, was here, and one two others. Senator Dole, of course, was here. I commend them for coming and making the effort. It reminded me of the effort on President's Day in 1979 when we had 24 inches of snow, more snow than we have today. As has been the custom and the tradition of the Senate, the farewell address of George Washington was delivered. On that occasion the Presiding Officer, Senator Warner, delivered that address, read it. I happened to have presided. There may have been one other Member of the Senate that was here. Senator Warner made a real effort, walked some several miles in order to come and finally got here. I remember that quite well, that particular time. So the Supreme Court of the United States is meeting. They are to be commended for their effort at this time. I would like to----

Mr. HEFLIN. I say yes to the Senator.

Mr. HEFLIN. Yes, I say to the Senator. I am not saying that I endorse snow. I do not like too much of it. I see my friend from Alaska and Vermont and others who endorse snow. I am not a snow endorser. But people in various places where the weather is not too bad, they have phoned in; and sometimes their phones are not being answered, and that is because of the problems here.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I would like to mention the situation concerning the budget negotiations. As Senator Specter said, they are really eight- tenths of 1 percent from reaching agreement in dollars and cents. It constitutes more than $12 trillion over a 7-year period. There is $100 billion in difference now, which is eight-tenths of 1 percent. There are policy differences involved in this. But many of us have been striving to have a balanced budget for a long time. The first bill I introduced calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, we came close to that amendment being adopted recently. I hope we return to it again. I hope it can be adopted. I am delighted to know that harmonious relations exist. There is nobody fussing right now about the other pertaining to the recess, as it is being called. But let me say this from the perspective of long- time negotiations of the settlement of lawsuits: You do not do too well with recesses. So my advice, if it is to mean anything, is get back together. You might want to recess a day or 2, or maybe a week at the longest, but recesses allow the reentrenchment of ideas, and therefore you do not have the give-and-take, you come fortified to maintain your position. It is a matter of trying to be reasonable in getting together. We are mighty close now. So let us not have too long a recess. Let us get back together. Certainly by the time the President makes his State of the Union Address, we ought to, by that time, have an agreement. That ought to be a goal that we should be striving toward, and making every effort. We are close, but the differences are still major. But we can reach an agreement and produce a balanced budget for 7 years. I urge all participants in the negotiations to get back together and to work and endeavor to be reasonable and to reach an agreement. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I join in the remarks of Senator Warner relative to the majority leader and minority leader and the minority whip, Senator Ford, and the person who has been serving somewhat of a similar capacity, Senator Warner, on the floor, as well as other leaders, including the chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate. I think the Senate, basically, has endeavored to act very reasonably in approaching this issue pertaining to the shutdown of the Government, getting the Federal employees back on the job. I think Senator Dole's speech on ``enough is enough'' was a remarkable speech and a remarkably courageous statement. I think in the Senate we have shown that we can get together, be reasonable, work out these matters. We have differences as to what a balanced budget over 7 years should be comprised of, and a lot of differences. Nevertheless, there is a spirit here of cooperation in endeavoring to try to work together, to try to solve the problems that confront the Nation at this particular time. I was really concerned about the bills that were coming over from the House relative to it, because in effect they were authorizing the employees to go back to work but in effect restricting what they could do by the use of funds. I sort of referred it to one of my friends as, you are sending them back to work, but you are putting them in a thumb- twiddling situation where they just have to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and they cannot do anything because of the restrictions. That still applies to a large number of the agencies and departments that are not covered. I am delighted that there is this second targeted appropriations continuing resolution and it takes care of a number of very important agencies and departments in Government. During the day when we first started out, this was omitted, and I began to talk to a great number of people pertaining to a number that I felt were essential, that they ought to be continued, such as the National Institutes of Health. I talked to the Director of the National Institutes of Health during the day. Of course, there were real problems there that they would have on continuation of research, vital research, and the grants. He told me they had something like over a 3- month period, around 4,000 applications that they had to process. There is also a very unusual program where people with rare diseases come within the ambit of the National Institutes of Health and are able to be treated, and they are given special treatment and special drugs. It has saved the lives of numerous individuals, and this would have had to be shut down. The Center for Communicable Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control were in a situation where Senator Nunn made a very telling speech and very informative speech about yesterday. To me, it was essential that we continue to operate at full force and with full effectiveness the Centers for Disease Control. Monitoring flu, you never know exactly what is going to happen. There are diseases that occur and epidemics that could take place. This is extremely important. To me, another very essential aspect was the conduct of the courts of the land. Our judiciary needed to be protected. I did some investigations and under the proposals that would have occurred until this last second targeted appropriations bill has now been approved by this body and will be brought up before the House later--and, of course, if they pass it, it will be deemed to have been adopted by the Senate under our resolution. There are an average of 4,500 individuals charged with Federal felonies each month. If the criminal trials are not held, public safety will be jeopardized, because under the Speedy Trial Act, criminal trials must be held within 70 days from the date the defendant is indicted or arrested, or charges are dismissed and the defendants will be released back into the community. As evidenced by the bombing at Oklahoma City, and in recent instances in Chicago involving the murder of a court security officer, an attempted mail bombing, the safety of judges and judicial employees is also at great risk. The lack of Federal funds to pay the contractors who operate the screening equipment and assist the U.S. marshals in providing security in Federal courthouses would result in undetected guns, explosives, and other weapons getting into courtrooms. Judges, especially those in high-risk areas, will not jeopardize the safety of court personnel, jurors, witnesses, and the public by holding trial in the absence of proper security. This could result in the possible dismissal of cases and release of defendants back into the community. And then jury trials: No funds would have been available to pay jurors in civil and criminal trials. As a result, courts will be faced with the choice of either delaying important trials or compelling citizens to serve under the threat of imprisonment or fine without any promise of timely pay. Trials would be canceled or delayed because 60 percent of the court reporting and half of all of the court interpreting is performed by outside contractors. Court-appointed private attorneys, who represent almost half of all criminal defendants, would not be paid, jeopardizing the holding of criminal trials for their clients. This would lead to possible dismissal of cases and release of defendants back into the community. Public safety throughout the country would be seriously impaired due to a lack of Federal funds to pay for drug testing, drug and mental health treatment, halfway house placement, home confinement monitoring, community supervision by judicial employees of 114,000 convicted criminals, the majority of whom have served sentences of incarceration, and those charged with Federal crimes and so on. I could go on. Even in the bankruptcy court there are matters that would have to be looked at, and this would cause problems relative to this. I am delighted to see that the Department of Justice crime programs-- the FBI, DEA, prisons, U.S. marshals, U.S. attorneys, U.S. Marshal Service, organized crime, and drug enforcement--are taken care of in regards to that. But there are other areas in the Department of Justice that are not taken care of. So, I think we still have to look at this, in this situation of where people go back to work, but then, in effect, they are so restricted they cannot carry out their duties, raises the question of how rational and how wise such a measure is. Nevertheless, it is better than what we have had. Again, I thank the leadership of the Senate for their work relative to this and in the reasonable approach they have used. Hopefully, some of that reasonable approach has rubbed off on the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

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 reductions in our annual deficits. But as with any omnibus legislation of this type, there is a right and wrong way to pursue the same goal. In our endeavor to achieve reductions in deficit spending, our priorities should be to reach an agreement on a 7-year budget and eliminating the Federal deficit. I think this is the wrong time for tax cuts. Eliminating tax cuts from the equation at this time will enable us to reach an agreement on the budget, and overcome this political impasse. Consideration on the proposed tax cuts should be postponed for 2 years to determine if deficit targets are being met, and in order to allow intensive study and hearings to determine what taxes should be reduced and how much taxes can be cut without detouring off the road toward a balanced budget. Furthermore, focusing our attention to balancing the budget and reducing the Federal deficit, while postponing consideration of tax cuts, will allow hundreds of thousands of Federal workers to return to work and return a sense of financial stability to our country. I have several major concerns surrounding the proposals, but the most disturbing are the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The Republican plan would cut Medicare growth by $270 billion over 7 years. It mandated a major restructuring of the program to supposedly give Medicare enrollees a wide range of options to join private health plans. However, I am concerned that instead of options, senior citizens would be faced with fewer alternatives, and forced into certain plans because they have no choice. This direction would ultimately cause senior citizens to be charged more for health care while receiving less in Medicare. A great portion of the savings in Medicare would result by raising the part B premium. The premiums that our senior citizens pay would rise from the $46.10 per month to nearly $90.00 by the year 2002. I have reservations and misgivings with regard to any Medicare reform that threatens the access to, and quality of, health care for senior citizens. I am fearful that the Republican plan would cut inpatient hospital service, home health care services, extended care services, hospice care, physicians services, outpatient hospital services, diagnostic tests, and other important services to our senior citizens. In addition to a reduction in services, the following immediate burdens would be placed on our senior citizens: For fiscal year 1996, the monthly premium would rise to $53.70. Participants in the part B program would be required to pay the first $150.00 of expenses out-of- pocket rather than the current $100 deductible. These combinations with the proposal to raise the eligibility age to 67 leads me to believe that seniors are being singled out to bear the brunt of budget cuts. These extreme cuts to Medicare also threaten health care for millions of people of all ages living in rural America. Since rural hospitals rely on Medicare for a significant proportion of their revenue, they will be particularly hard hit. Some will be forced to close altogether. Hospitals in rural areas are few and far between. A hospital closing affects all rural residents in the vicinity, not just seniors on Medicare. Under the GOP plan, these Americans will be forced to drive further to the nearest hospital, putting lives at risk. Not only do these proposals cut Medicare, but Medicaid is also being reduced over the next 7 years. For the past 30 years, the Medicaid Program has been America's health and long-term care safety net. The Republican proposal was to repeal Medicaid, slash its Federal funding over the next 7 years, and to turn remaining Federal funds over to the States in the form of a block grant. In a State like Alabama, which is habitually faced with budget proration, the effects of such additional burdens would be huge and devastating. The bottom line is this--these Medicaid cuts are simply too much, too soon. Our State will not be able to cope without hurting people severely. Mr. President, as I stated before, our primary objective must be to first focus on passing a budget that reduces the Federal deficit without putting Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid at risk, and then after 2 years, turn our attention to the issue of reducing taxes.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I must oppose the conference report on welfare reform despite my support for the original version of this bill, which previously passed the Senate. The conference report on welfare reform goes far beyond the bill passed by the Senate and consequently, Republican efforts to reduce the budget fall heavily on working poor families, unemployed workers, the elderly and the disabled. Welfare reform, in my mind, is about moving people from welfare to work. This conference report undermines that goal. The bill's apparent emphasis on transforming the welfare system to a work system is undermined by the failure to provide States with adequate resources for work programs and child care while maintaining a basic safety net of poor children and the elderly. The bill combines cash assistance and work programs into a single block grant. According to CBO estimates, block grant funding, combined with State spending, would fall $5.5 billion short of what will be needed to fund the work program in 2002 alone, assuming States maintain their safety net for poor children and the elderly. Over the 7-year period, funding for the work program would fall about $14 billion short of what the CBO projects will be needed. Furthermore, this bill also contains provisions which allow States to escape the work requirements the bill seeks to impose by cutting needy families off the rolls instead. This bill also makes deep cuts in basic benefits for the elderly poor. The conference report would likely deepen poverty among the elderly due to a series of provisions that would reduce or eliminate SSI, food stamps, and Medicaid for various groups of elderly people living below the poverty line. The conference agreement would raise from 65 to 67 the age at which impoverished elderly people can qualify for SSI, thus effectively eliminating SSI to eligible people 65 and 66 years old. Not be coincidence, the change in the age requirement for SSI eligibility would be raised in tandem with the scheduled increase to 67 at which retirees may receive full Social Security benefits. If the Social Security retirement age is raised in the future, the SSI eligibility would automatically raise as well. In addition, since receiving SSI is a qualification for Medicaid, persons denied SSI would most likely lose Medicaid coverage as well. This conference agreement also falls seriously short in that the provision of current law which assures that AFDC families receive Medicaid coverage would be repealed. Roughly 1.5 million children and at least 4 million mothers could lose Medicaid coverage as a result and join the ranks of the uninsured. Also, changes made in eligibility rules would mean a reduction in benefits for most disabled children by 25 percent. This Medicaid provision was in neither the House nor the Senate bills. The school lunch and other child nutrition programs are programs that I have long supported and strongly believe that they have made considerable contributions to the overall improving health of our school-aged children. These programs must be maintained as they provide an important safety net for young children and establish a solid foundation for future development. However, the welfare conference report contains provisions that could undermine the school lunch program. The conference report would allow for seven States to block grant the school lunch program. In these States, sufficient funds would no longer be available in the event of an economic recession. States that have a history of budget reductions through proration, like Alabama, will be hard hit. In times of an economic downturn, the fixed amount going to these States would not be sufficient to provide adequate assistance to the rolls of the needy that would expand as a result of the recession. This could ultimately lead to the serving of lower quality meals in an effort to cut corners. This is absolutely not in the best interest of our young children for whom we are responsible. The bill also includes more than $32 billion in food stamp benefit cuts affecting the working poor, the elderly and disabled poor, and all others receiving food stamp assistance. There has been much talk about reducing the waste, fraud and abuse associated with this program. Actually, less than three percent of the bill's food stamp savings come from cutting administrative costs, reducing fraud or imposing tougher sanctions on people who fail to follow program requirements. Instead, these cuts would hit families with low incomes. Also, for no reason that I can see, food stamp benefits would be cut for those receiving low-income energy assistance. For the many reasons stated, and for many more that have gone unmentioned, I must oppose the conference report. This bill does little to encourage people to move from welfare to work by removing the safety net for individuals as they make that transition. Basic assistance for the elderly and child nutrition programs are cut without must consideration of the impacts that they will have on those that are least able to support themselves. We should not punish people for being young, or old or poor. We should, instead, provide for the necessary safeguards for people who want to move from welfare to work. This does not preclude our efforts to identify and deal with those taking advantage of the system, it simply signals our willingness to help those that are trying to help themselves and not punishing those that need our help.

Mr. HEFLIN

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

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, my hometown of Tuscumbia, AL is in the midst of celebrating a very special day in its history. On December 20, 1820--175 years ago--Tuscumbia was officially declared to be a city in the State of Alabama. Hers is a rich and colorful history, steeped in the tradition and development of Alabama and of the Nation. Tuscumbia's recorded story is, first, one of French settlers, who as far back as 1780 established a trading post on Cold Water Creek near the Tennessee River about 1 mile from the present-day northern city limit. This creek, which runs through Tuscumbia, is the outlet for the immense spring which rises from the ground near the center of the city. It had probably been a center of Indian activity for many centuries prior to that. When the French colony was established, Nashville, TN was the most important American trading station in what was then the southwestern United States. Nashville and the settlements to its south were frequently subjected to hostile incursions by Indians stirred up by the French. In 1787, Col. James Robertson organized an expedition, marching south and across the shoals of the Tennessee River where he found the Indian village near the mouth of Cold Water Creek. The Indians and their French allies retreated a short distance up the creek to where Tuscumbia is located and here Col. Robertson attacked and defeated them, capturing the trading post and a large quantity of supplies. In March 1817, Congress passed an act establishing the Territory of Alabama. The town was first surveyed and laid out as a city by Gen. Coffee that same year, 1817. When the territorial legislature assembled at Huntsville in October 1819, a bill was passed incorporating the town of ``Ococopoosa,'' which means ``cold water.'' At another session of the territorial legislature a few months later, the name of the town was changed to Big Spring, and on December 20, 1820, the legislature of the new State of Alabama officially incorporated it as a town. The name was changed on December 31, 1822 to Tuscumbia, after a celebrated chief of the Chickasaw Indians who had befriended the Dickson family, the first American settlers who arrived in 1815. When Tuscumbia was established, the Tennessee River was navigable from the Ohio River until it reached the shoals near Tuscumbia. The shoals extended to nearby Decatur, where the Tennessee River again became navigable up into the State of Tennessee. About this time, a new enterprise known as the railroad became commercially viable in the United States. The very first railroad to be built west of the Allegheny mountains was one that connected Tuscumbia to the Tennessee River. It was completed in 1832, 2\1/8\ miles long. In 1834, the Tuscumbia, Courtland, and Decatur Railroad was built in order to serve as a connecting link between the 2 portions of navigable waters of the Tennessee River. Over the next 25 years, there was an enormous amount of trade with New Orleans by water. Magnificent steamers, some of them carrying as much as 6,000 bales of cotton, glided up and down the rivers. Some of these ships were palatial in their accommodations and furnishings. Excursions on one of these elegant boats to the Crescent City were very popular. Other steamers ran to cities along the Ohio River and to St. Louis. River traffic became less popular around 1857, when the Memphis and Charleston Railroad was connected with the Tuscumbia, Courtland, and Decatur Railroad. Until completion of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, the Tuscumbia Post Office was a major distributing office, and probably the largest and most important one between Nashville and New Orleans. A number of State lines converged here. Tuscumbia's story is also a tragic one of war and destruction. During the War Between the States from 1861 to 1865, there were few areas of the South more completely devastated than the beautiful Tennessee Valley. Tuscumbia was at the center of the fiery track of the armies of both sides. Large blocks of brick stores and many private homes were destroyed and condemned. Cavalry horses roamed at will through grounds that were the pride of their owners. Americans have, thankfully, rarely experienced the infliction from an enemy army's occupation. But the people of the Tennessee Valley area, including Tuscumbia, during the time of the Civil War were all-too- familiar with looting, burning, and other atrocities. In her book 200 Years at Muscle Shoals, Nina Leftwich recalls some of the conditions these citizens faced. The following passage appears in her historical writings: The story of the wrongs inflicted upon the defenseless citizens of Tuscumbia during the occupation by the Federals is best told by an account of it written by Mr. L.B. Thornton [the editor of the local newspaper] soon after it occurred: ``The Federal army first made its appearance in Tuscumbia on the 16th of April 1862 under General Mitchell . . . They broke open nearly every store in the town, and robbed them of everything they wanted, arrested a great many peaceable citizens, forcing some to take the oath of allegiance to the U.S. government, robbed the masonic hall of its jewels and maps, and broke open and destroyed the safes in the stores and offices. They destroyed my office by breaking my desk and book cases, and destroying the papers, and took them from my office 30 maps of the state of Alabama . . . ``Ladies could not safely go out of their houses. Citizens were arrested and held in confinement, or sent off to the North, in many cases without any charge being made against them, and the citizens were not permitted to meet on the streets and converse together. Person nor property was safe from the soldiers. They took from private citizens whatever they wanted--hogs, sheep, cattle of every kind, vegetables, corn, potatoes, fowl of every description . . . When they evacuated the town, they set fire to it in 4 or 5 different places * * *'' More than 30 of Tuscumbia's brave young men were killed during the war, and for years after the sound of battle had died away, the town sat on the ashes of desolation, waiting for a brighter day to dawn. That day did come when the industrial city of Sheffield was founded, bringing jobs and trade to Tuscumbia. Colbert County was established on February 6, 1867, when it was separated from Franklin County, one of the original Alabama counties. Later that same year, the county was abolished by the Constitutional Convention. After Alabama was readmitted to the Union in 1868, the new government reestablished Colbert County. This new county need a county seat, and on March 7, 1870, an election was held to determine if Tuscumbia or Cherokee would be the permanent county seat. Tuscumbia won by a vote of 1367 to 794. Writing in 1888, Capt. Arthur Henley Keller, who authored the book History of Tuscumbia, Alabama, described Tuscumbia as having ``caught the contagion of progress and enterprise, and within the last 2 years has doubled her population. Observant and far-seeing men recognize the fact that she has every natural advantage that any other place in Northern Alabama has, and that which money can never secure. Her society is as good as can be found anywhere. She has churches of all denominations and first-rate schools. The Deshler Female Institute stands in the front rank of Southern schools. It stands as a monument to the memory of Brigadier Gen. James Deshler, of Tuscumbia, who was killed at the battle of Chickamauga.'' The story of Tuscumbia is that of leaders like Robert Burns Lindsay, who served as Governor of Alabama in the early years of the 1870's, which were difficult years of Reconstruction. He opposed secession, along with most of the residents of north Alabama, but after Alabama's ordinance of secession was enacted, he remained loyal to his adopted state. In 1870, Lindsay was elected Governor of Alabama. His leadership was important during those tough Reconstruction years and he fought mightily to end that difficult era of occupation. Governor Lindsay and his wife Sarah had a daughter named Maud McKnight Lindsay. She attended Deshler Female Institute and received kindergarten training. She went on to teach kindergarten in Tuscumbia and served as the principal of the Florence Free Kindergarten, the first free kindergarten in Alabama. She became a great leader in the cause of educating young children and was the author of many childrens' books. She passed away in 1941. No history of Tuscumbia would be complete without the story of Helen Keller, who was born at Ivy Green in 1880. In fact, the Keller family first settled in Tuscumbia around the time of its founding in 1820. Her grandfather was very involved in the railroad development. His son was Captain Arthur Henley Keller, a colorful confederate soldier, lawyer, and newspaper editor who wrote the history from which I quoted earlier. Capt. Keller was Helen's father. When she was only 19 months old, she suffered acute congestion of the stomach and brain which left her deaf and blind. It was right behind the main house at Ivy Green at the water pump that Helen Keller, under the tutelage of her teacher Anne Sullivan, first learned that every object had a name. The word ``w-a-t-e-r'' was the first one she understood, but ``teacher'' became the most important word in her life. Tuscumbia native Helen Keller contributed so much in her lifetime as an educator, author, and advocate for the disabled. She furthered the cause of improving education and general conditions for the handicapped and disabled around the world. During World War II, she visited the sick and wounded in military hospitals. Today, Ivy Green is host to an annual weekend festival celebrating the life and accomplishments of the ``First Lady of Courage.'' Thousands of people from all across the world pay visits to see where Helen Keller lived as a child and where she learned to overcome obstacles to become an inspiring heroine. Each summer, thousands also attend live performances of the play ``The Miracle Worker.'' This most famous daughter of Tuscumbia is a symbol of hope to those around the world who have ever doubted their ability to persevere and achieve. She passed away in 1968. An integral part of the story of Tuscumbia is the founding of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the great achievements of the New Deal. Congress created TVA in 1933 and gave it the overall goal of conserving the resources of the valley region. Congress also directed TVA to speed the region's economic development and, in case of war, to use the Tennessee Valley's resources for national defense. It provided many much-needed jobs during the dark years of the Great Depression and contributed to our military success during World War II. Congress established TVA after many years of debate on how to use the Federal Ggovernment's two nitrate plants and Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals. During the ensuing 62 years, TVA has built dams to control floods, create electrical power, and deepen rivers for shipping. It has planted new forests and preserved existing ones, led the development of new fertilizers, and is now involved in solving the nation's environmental problems. The lakes created by damming the Tennessee River and its branches add to the beauty of our region. Besides providing electrical power, water recreation, and navigable waterways, TVA has been a major contributor in the economic growth and development of this area and all of north Alabama. Attracted by TVA electrical power, Reynolds Metals Co. was located at Listerhill, AL, and for more than 50 years, many Tuscumbians have been provided jobs there. During a somewhat similar period, the Robbins plants located in Tuscumbia have impacted the economy of the city and region. During a very crucial period in the development of the Tennessee Valley, the northern part of Alabama was represented in Congress by a Tuscumbian, the Hon. Edward B. Almon. He was elected in 1914 and was very much involved in the congressional authorizations for Wilson Dam and the two government nitrate plants. He played an important role in passing the National Defense Act of 1916, which was highly instrumental in the development of this area. He was the Congressman when the TVA was created. He died a short time after the TVA act was signed into law, and was succeeded by another Tuscumbian, Archibald Hill Carmichael. He served during the most formative years of the Roosevelt era. Earlier, I mentioned Brig. Gen. James Deshler, for whom Deshler Female Institute was named and whose name our high school bears. I should also mention that his father, Maj. David Deshler, played an important role in the development of Tuscumbia, particularly with regard to the railroads. The name of Gen. John Daniel Rather is also indelibly etched into the railroad history of Tuscumbia. He served as a director and officer of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad. While he was its president, it was merged with the East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railroad to become the Southern Railway System. Tremendous contributions to the State's educational system came from 2 Tuscumbians, Dr. George Washington Trenholm and his son, Dr. Harper Councill Trenholm. And no history of Tuscumbia would be complete without mentioning Heinie Manush, a professional baseball player who was the first Alabamian to be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown, NY. He compiled a life-time batting average of .330. I hope the celebrations and events over the last 3 weeks have brought Tuscumbians a better understanding of the city and area's history. As the 175th birthday of our beloved Tuscumbia comes to a close, and as we start speeding toward her 200th anniversary in the year 2020, I hope that each resident will take a moment to reflect upon how blessed they are to be from there. I think back upon my life and career there and cannot imagine them having been anywhere else. It is a progressive little city that has changed a great deal over the years, but it is also one that has always retained its small-town charm and the many qualities that make it such a unique place to live. Since her birthday 175 years ago, Tuscumbia has aged gracefully and improved with time. As I said back in March when I announced my retirement from the Senate, I will enjoy the remainder of my days in my hometown after I retire, for Tuscumbia is a wonderful little town to be from and the best little town in America to go home to. I wish Tuscumbia a happy birthday and look forward to enjoying many more with her well into the next century.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sarbanes, I ask unanimous consent that Richad Ben-Veniste, Lance Cole, Neal Kravitz, Timothy Mitchell, Glenn Ivey, James Portnoy, Steven Fromewick, David Luna, Jeffrey Winter, and Amy Windt be granted floor privileges during consideration of Senate Resolution 199.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, over 3 years ago, in September 1992, teacher Susan Ross of Yorktown High School in Yorktown Heights, NY, contacted my office to inform me of a wonderful new project which she had recently developed for her ninth grade students. She had just organized a cultural exchange program between her students and the students of Monroe County High School in Monroeville, AL. As part of the program, she wanted to get my recollections of what is was like growing up in Alabama and in the South. Yorktown Heights is located about a half-hour's drive from New York City in a rural area surrounded by farming towns. Monroeville is the hometown of writer Harper Lee and was the model for the fictional town of Macomb in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel ``To Kill a Mockingbird.'' The courthouse in Monroeville actually served as part of the set for the Academy Award-winning film version. This classic novel, which Ms. Ross has taught her classes off and on for 26 years, proved to be the catalyst for her program. One year, while reviewing the books that she would use in her class for the upcoming school term, she realized, in her words: ``I was teaching a book about a culture I knew nothing about, and I was possibly doing a disservice to it. To understand the issue from the character's point of view, you need to go to the source, so I did.'' Going to the source meant first approaching her counterparts in Monroeville. First, she contacted Monroe County High School Principal Pat Patterson, who put her in touch with Paralee Broughton, a 9th and 10th grade teacher at the high school. Ms. Broughton told Susan that since ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' would serve as the central link between the two schools, she should get in touch with Mrs. Sarah Dyess, whose eighth-grade students were reading the book. With the help of Ms. Broughton, Mrs. Dyess, and other teachers, educators, and administrators in Monroeville, Ms. Ross established a truly unique and stimulating cultural exchange program which she hoped would teach respect for each other's cultural differences and individuality and give students an understanding of basic universal human rights that are vital to democratic society. The project came to be known as Understanding and Appreciating Cultural Diversity, and was to help create cultural awareness and understanding through letters, tapes, pictures, and interviews. As part of the program, Ms. Ross' students would create all these materials and exchange them with students from the other school. The program is special because it was the first time that a project of this nature and scope had been done between any schools from the North and South. Ms. Ross had high hopes for her program, the key to which was overcoming stereotypes. It was not to be simply a pen-pal correspondence exercise. Instead, each class was to communicate with the other class as a group, each serving as a microcosm of its community. To get the exchange underway, the students at Yorktown compiled a written and visual profile of their community, including its history and information gathered through interviews with local officials. They provided an analysis of the town's transportation, entertainment, and shopping facilities. The Alabama students, under the guidance of their teacher Mrs. Dyess, compiled a videotape of their community which they sent to their friends in New York. Monroeville sent Yorktown an autographed copy of ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' while Yorktown in turn sent Monroeville books set in the Hudson Valley, including Washington Irving's ``The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.'' Their teacher watched as the students' misconceptions began to crumble. She saw lackadaisical youngsters grow interested in reading when they began believing that the South was a real and multidimensional place. They learned that there are many different Souths, just as there are Norths, and both groups learned that it is dangerous to generalize about any region. While learning of each others' differences, the exchange also made obvious the similarities between Yorktown Heights and Monroeville. Both are a mix of suburban and small town. Both have many working farms in the community. The two schools are about the same size, 900 or so students. In both places, the school is a vital link in the community and there are strong family values present. The program has had its lighthearted movements along the way. Yorktown students were surprised to discover upon receiving a copy of Monroe County's yearbook that the students did not wear overalls. On the other side of the connection, one Yorktown student, Guy Gentile, was surprised to be asked by one of his Monroeville counterparts ``If I walk out the street--in Yorktown--will I be shot?'' Soon, other schools learned of Ms. Ross' innovative program and expressed an interest in becoming involved. Her students eventually began an exchange with a school in Louisiana to gain a better understanding and awareness of the influence of French culture on the United States. On November 14 of this year, Ms. Ross called to let me know that two of her current students were visiting Monroeville as part of the Bridging the Miles program, as it is now called. Overall, the program has served as a bridge for students who would otherwise depend on often inaccurate and shallow media stereotypes. Ms. Ross said that a typical Yorktown student's opinions of Southerners were formed by movies such as ``My Cousin Vinny'' and television shows like ``The Beverly Hillbillies.'' The students were surprised to learn of the extent to which the racial climate in the South has changed since the 1930's, when ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' was set. They had not expected students who were so open about race and who participated in school activities together regardless of race. In Monroeville, the students realized we have a tendency to cluster everyone in one stereotypical unit and mark them as being nondescript people. The sharing of poetry and letters has given the students a whole new perspective on the relationship between North and South. The program begun by Ms. Ross has gained a great amount of attention all over the country, having been spotlighted by The New York Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the CBS television network. So far, most of its funding has come directly from Ms. Ross; this is how strongly she believes in what she is doing. Hopefully, the program will continue to expand and promote further understanding among the many diverse areas of the United States. Just as programs such as the one between Yorktown and Monroeville demonstrate that it is wrong to generalize and stereotype about regions of the country, the energy, drive, and example of Susan Ross prove that it is also harmful to generalize about the health of our public schools and the commitment of public school teachers. I congratulate her for her broad-mindedness and innovativeness in educating young people. It is my hope that others interested in ways of improving American education will see the great benefits that can be realized through projects such as this. One thing that makes us unique as Americans is our diverse cultural heritages that bind us together even as we maintain our regionally distinct traditions and customs. We tend to think of exchange programs only in terms of those between citizens of different nations, and these are indeed important and valuable tools for learning about our world. But as Ms. Ross and students of Yorktown High School and their counterparts at Monroe County High School have demonstrated, we have so much to draw from different regions within the United States itself that it is not necessary to go out of our own country to experience a cultural exchange. I commend her and wish her every continued success for her programs.

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, the House of Representatives will be losing one of its true giants when Alabama Congressman Tom Bevill retires at the end of this Congress. His tremendous leadership, particularly in the areas of waterway development, energy policy, and medical research will be virtually impossible to replace. I was highly disappointed at his decision, for he is a tried and true leader for our Nation. His retirement will be a huge loss for the country and for Alabama. Tom and I attended law school together at the University of Alabama and remained close friends over the years. He is the dean of the Alabama congressional delegation, having served now for over 30 years. Tom Bevill has served longer in the U.S. House of Representatives than any other Member of Congress from Alabama. Today, Tom is the House's 11th most senior Member and one of its most effective legislators. He has worked closely on several issues of particular importance to our State. He certainly has played an important role in the growth and the development of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Because of his leadership and efforts, UAB, as it is known, is today home to one of the very best medical schools in the Nation and has some of its premier health care facilities and is on the vanguard of medical research. Tom Bevill was chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Appropriations Committee from 1977 until this year when the Republicans took control of that Chamber. His leadership extended beyond the confines of his own district. For example, Mobile, a port city located some distance from his district in north Alabama, has been greatly enhanced by several waterways projects resulting from his stewardship. Every area in the State of Alabama has benefited from his seniority and position in Congress. Some have even called him Alabama's third Senator, and, I will say, that the Nation, as a whole, certainly has benefited. No one has been in the forefront more pertaining to waterway development. And waterway development is extremely important. He has had some battles with Presidents relative to waterway development. I might say that he came out victorious in these battles. He is a native of a small Walker County mining community in Alabama by the name of Townley. Tom Bevill has spent part of his childhood building small dams. He is a lifelong Democrat, and a fundamental reason for his party affiliation is the suffering and the poverty he saw during the Great Depression. He has said that his philosophy of Government was formed during the Depression when he saw his father, a former miner and a storekeeper in rural Townley, give food to people who were literally starving. He openly admired Franklin Delano Roosevelt and what the New Deal did for Alabama and the Tennessee Valley. Beginning in 1958, he served two terms in the Alabama State Senate. In 1966, he won his seat to the U.S. House and has been there ever since. From the start, he earned the admiration and the respect of his colleagues by not ever allowing policy or political disagreements to become personal. He is known for his fairness in all of his dealings. He is a gentleman with a courtly manner that often eases tensions and invites compromise. He is principled and consistent, a man true to his word, his conscience, his constituents and his colleagues. Tom Bevill will be sorely missed when the 105th Congress convenes in January 1997, but I can certainly understand his decision, having made the same one earlier this year. I wish him and his wonderful, gracious wife, Lou, all the best as they enter a new phase of their lives.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in the bustling North Alabama town of Florence, an athletic dynasty reigns, cloaked in the royal purple and gold school colors, producing a championship heir each year since 1993. I come to the Senate floor today to tell you of an amazing group of young people at an outstanding university in my beloved State of Alabama. Just days ago, on December 9, the University of North Alabama Lions claimed their third consecutive national championship in Division II football. This is an achievement unmatched in college football history by any team from that division or higher. Their victory came at the expense of a worthy opponent, Pittsburg State, with a final score of 27 to 7. I can go on and on- and, mind you, I will in a moment- about the unbelievable records that have been set and broken by these champions over the past 3 years, but I would first like to call attention to a statement made by the UNA Lions Coach Bobby Wallace. In an interview with the Florence TimesDaily, Coach Wallace stressed that this once-in- a-lifetime opportunity of three championships in a row is not what made his team unique: Don't get me wrong, I wanted very badly to win this game. But winning really wasn't that important. A win today wasn't going to make this team special. They were special long before today. All they did today was go out and prove they may be the best ever in Division II. Mr. President, it is this type of attitude that sets the Lions apart as true champions. These young men and their outstanding coaches realize that winning isn't the true mark of a good team. Character, determination, dedication and hard work all factor into the champion spirit. However, I would be remiss if I failed to point out the obvious: In addition the champion spirit, UNA most definitely has the talent to capture the victory. And it is this astounding talent that I would like to note for the record. Over 15,000 people attended the sold-out game at Braly Stadium and countless more watched on ESPN. Ken Berger of the Associated Press summarized the championship game: ``It wasn't even close. North Alabama (14-0) shredded Kansas-based Pittsburg State (12-1-1), amassing 380 yards to the Gorillas' 176 and holding a 2-to-1 advantage in possession time.'' Ronald McKinnon, senior linebacker, received the 1995 Harlon Hill Trophy as the NCAA Division II National Player of the Year. He is the first defensive player in the 10-year history of the award to finish in the top three, much less win the award. He proved worthy once again in the championship game with 14 tackles, one for a 5-yard loss and a recovered fumble that led to UNA's second touchdown. Starting quarterback Cody Gross, suffering from a torn hip muscle, still managed to complete eight of 13 passes for 102 yards and a touchdown in addition to carrying the ball three times for four yards. He split the time with senior back-up quarterback Cale Manley who guided the team in a stunning 76-yard, 12-play drive on UNA's opening possession. Jermaine Roberts led UNA's championship game effort with 107 yards on 20 carries, scoring twice. Mike Goens, regional editor at the Florence TimesDaily, described the atmosphere in the final 3 minutes of the game: ``At that moment, an overcast afternoon turned to dusk. Metaphorically, the lights began going out for Pittsburg State. And the evening sky, fittingly, began turning shades of purple and gold.'' The UNA Lions have dominated their field of play as no other college football team has, ever. They have a 3-year record of 41 wins and 1 loss. That loss was to the No. 1 ranked Division I-AA Youngstown State. The Lions are the only college football team at any level to win 40 games in 3 years. UNA's current 23-game winning streak is second best in the Nation, behind Division I's Nebraska with 24. This team is indeed made up of outstanding young men. Nineteen of the fifty-two players who dressed out for the championship game are seniors. This senior class closed their collective careers as the winningest in school and Gulf South Conference history at 48-5-1. Coach Wallace, not known as one to rest on his laurels, told the media after the game that he plans to guide the UNA Lions to a fourth straight championship next season. That is the spirit of a true champion. For now, however, I join my voice with a legion of others in proudly hailing UNA's conquering heroes with the resounding cheer: ``Go Lions.''

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, throughout the Bosnian conflict, I have had grave reservations about the involvement of American ground troops in that troubled region. After the President made his speech on November 27, 1995, I continued to have serious concerns, because I felt that U.S. ground troops should not be involved in such a violent area that should be, primarily, a European responsibility. Following his speech, I expressed these concerns in view of the fragility of the tentative Dayton peace agreement and the prospects for similarities to our peacekeeping efforts in Lebanon. I recalled the changes of attitude on the part of Congress and the public when the disastrous consequences in Beirut and Somalia unfolded on the nightly news. Over the last several days, I have immersed myself in a study and evaluation of our present posture regarding the situation in Bosnia. I have listened and talked to military, political and foreign policy leaders, Members of Congress, and individuals in other related fields as well. First, let me say that I hope during this debate over our role in Bosnia, we will rethink America's role as the sole remaining superpower and its participation in foreign disputes. We must recognize that other countries will want to use our military and financial resources to solve problems that basically they should remedy themselves. In my opinion, there should be less military involvement by the United States, as well as reduced foreign financial assistance, unless there is a vital U.S. interest involved. Furthermore, this need for rethinking is augmented by the movement to achieve a balanced budget. Having said that, I want to share some of the thoughts that have entered my mind after reflection and discussions. Like most Americans, I am thankful that a cease-fire and hopefully an effective Bosnia peace agreement has been reached between all of the warring factions in this long-standing conflict. I pray that the cease- fire holds, that the agreement succeeds, and that the Bosnians can live in peace. We have watched for nearly 5 years as these neighbors have cruelly and methodically torn each other apart. On the surface at least, the Dayton agreement does hold promise for peace. It allows the thousands of refugees, theoretically at least, to return to their homes; it removes the foreign ``holy warriors'' from Bosnia; it withdraws heavy weapons; it preserves the October 5 cease- fire; and hopefully, it will stop the genocide and other atrocities that have plagued that part of Europe for far too long. My primary concern with the agreement and the NATO mission it calls for is the requirement of having to send American ground forces to implement its provisions. This should be, essentially, a European mission. The use of air power on the part of the United States was very effective. That was, I believe, the extent to which most Americans expected U.S. forces to be involved. Perhaps this was then and is now the appropriate extent of our involvement. NATO is probably the only military force that can be counted upon to do the job of peace implementation in Bosnia. The NATO air strikes, which were largely responsible for forcing the warring parties to the negotiating table in Dayton, were proof positive of their effectiveness. The strikes also proved that the Serbs do respond to the power of military might. Still, the mission in Bosnia seems to go beyond the defensive purpose for which the alliance was established nearly 50 years ago, and might set a dangerous precedent for NATO. If NATO's role is to be different from its treaty responsibilities, it should be tailored on an ad hoc basis to limit U.S. participation in what are primarily European internal problems. Throughout this debate the question arises, ``Is it in the vital national interest of the United States to become involved in Bosnia?'' The term ``vital national interest,'' however, seems to mean different things to different people. I would therefore like to take a moment to reflect on my idea of a vital national interest and how it differs from other interests our Nation may have. A vital national interest is one that a country considers to be crucial to its national security. These are issues that are so important they are not open to compromise or negotiation. A country has no choice but to risk war to protect a vital national interest. With a major interest, on the other hand, the country is not at immediate risk. Instead, a decision must be made as to whether the use of force is justified. The use of the military is a question of risks, benefits, capabilities, and, in this case in particular, conscience. Applying these definitions, it is questionable whether participation in Bosnia is a vital national interest of the United States. Some have stated their belief that the Bosnian conflict could spill across national boundaries and engulf Europe in bloodshed. They use our vital national interest of a stable Europe to justify action in Bosnia. We have, however, effectively managed to prevent the spread of this conflict for nearly 5 years without committing ground troops to the region. We must also remember the peace keeping mission in Beirut, Lebanon. Many argued back in 1983 that if we did not end the fighting in Lebanon, it would soon spill across the borders and the entire Middle East would be at war. However, our national interest was in a stable Middle East, not necessarily a stable Lebanon. After we pulled out our marines, we rightly redoubled our efforts on preventing the war from spreading across the borders to Israel and Syria. Another problem we faced in Lebanon and may face in Bosnia is our apparent lack of neutrality. It is essential that peacekeepers enforcing an agreement or cease-fire not take sides. Yet in Beirut, we bombed and shelled the Syrian-backed forces in support of the Lebanese Army and Christian militia. This lack of neutrality made our men targets and led to the fatal bombing of the Marine compound. In the present situation, United States planes have bombed numerous targets in Bosnia and killed hundreds of Serbs. Do we believe the friends, comrades, and commanders of these dead men view the Americans as neutral? And if we begin to arm the Moslems to achieve military balance among the three parties, will any Serbs view us as neutral? If any of the warring parties become convinced that the Americans are their enemy, it could mean real trouble, not the least of which could come in the form of terrorist attacks similar to Beirut in 1983. There are other problems to consider as well, such as the divided feelings among the Serbs themselves about the Dayton agreement; divisions among the Croats and Moslems; the remaining residuals of the presence of foreign ``holy warriors''; the millions of land mines; probably unfriendly or hostile police forces; and the lifting of the arms embargo after 6 months. Having outlined some of my reservations about this operation, we have to be realistic. Some of our troops are already in Bosnia. The remainder of the 20,000 have been committed and will soon be there. Furthermore, the constitutionally-suspect War Powers Act allows the President to deploy troops for 60 days without congressional approval. It is also highly unlikely that Congress will vote to cut off funding at any time during the mission. There is no Member of this body who does not support our troops when they are put in harm's way. While we might disagree over strategy or whether or not to support the peace plan itself, on the matter of supporting our troops, we do not differ. Since their deployment to Bosnia is a matter-of-fact, our task as Members of Congress, then, is to see that they have every possible means to succeed from weaponry to intelligence. Another point to be raised is whether a failure to support the mission at this point will in some ways undermine the forces sent to Bosnia. This is a real possibility, since those rogue elements who may not believe that we are united on this issue, or that we are looking for an excuse to withdraw, could cause much greater danger to our troops. While the impact of our vote on our troops is of paramount importance, there are a number of other issues that we must take into account as well. For instance, we must consider the constitutional role of the Commander in Chief and the War Powers Act; the respect we have for the military professionals; the constitutional roles of both Congress and the Executive; and the credibility of the United States. Our decision must take into account the constitutional role of the Commander in Chief. Even strong opponents of the mission concede that the President has the power to deploy troops with or without the consent of Congress. The War Powers Act allows him to deploy troops for 60 days without congressional authorization. No President, however, has ever acknowledged the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and it has never been invoked by Congress. Since it is constitutionally suspect, in all reality, the only way for Congress to stop the deployment is to stop funding. Otherwise, a constitutional crisis could be precipitated, with Congress invoking the act and the two branches ending up in court while troops are in the field. Our decision should also take into account the great professionalism of the military. In my discussions with military leaders, I have been reassured of the fact that we do have the most highly skilled, educated, and trained military in our history. I am confident that if we give them every means necessary to succeed, they will succeed. While mistakes and unforeseen circumstances may arise, there is no reason to doubt their bravery, dedication, or professionalism in carrying out their task. The respective constitutional roles of both the Congress and the executive branch should also influence our thinking here. The President is the Commander in Chief and head of state. The Congress has the power of the purse, the power to declare war, and the role of approving treaties and ambassadors. But we must be realistic. The President is supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the CIA and other related security agencies, and the State Department. He therefore has, at least in terms of numbers and experience, superior resources than the Congress in deciding the feasibility of committing military forces. This reality must be taken into account. However, this is not to say that Congress does not have independent, knowledgeable resources and a role to play in such a decision. I also believe that the credibility of the United States is on the line in this situation, and we should carefully consider what would happen if we do not live up to the commitments made by the head of state, even if we disagree with those commitments. We only have one President, who is also the head of state, and he speaks for the country on matters of foreign policy. I fear that our credibility will be seriously damaged if we fail to support the mission. Such a vote will not prevent a deployment, but it will, however, send a message to the factions in Bosnia and to our allies and enemies as well. Without abdicating the role of the Congress, it is crucial that we give the President some degree of flexibility in conducting foreign affairs. Finally, there is certainly a moral dimension to this issue. During our history, whether we were facing fascism or communism, we fought knowing our cause was just and that America was in the right. Our conviction that we were right was strong because we were certain that fascism and communism were wrong. Mr. President, we all know that ethnic cleansing is wrong. We all know rape is wrong. We all know that murder is wrong. And without a doubt we all know that genocide is wrong and a great evil. It is a wrong so great that it shocks our humanity and lets our conscience know that it is right to take action. The intense debate and congressional action regarding the Persian Gulf War was proof that even a deeply divided Nation and Senate will rally around a cause once a decision has been made. The vote to authorize the use of military force was 52 in favor and 47 against. Yet, 5 days later, on January 17, 1991, the Senate voted 98 to 0 in favor of a resolution which commended and supported the efforts and leadership of the President as Commander in Chief in the Persian Gulf hostilities and expressed unequivocal support of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. I remember many Senators who had voted against the authorization of force saying before that vote in which we supported our Commander in Chief, that no one should doubt that the Senate and the Nation would be united once the authorization had been approved. I hope the same will be true once the votes have been cast with regard to the Bosnian troop deployment. For the reasons I have stated and to demonstrate United States resolve and, most importantly, to give our American troops every means of success, I will support the deployment of America's military might to Bosnia. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to protect the American flag. We have recently revised the language in order to address the concerns of a few of my colleagues. They have voiced reservations about allowing behavior toward the flag to be governed by a multiplicity of State laws. The language we have added to the amendment establishes that Congress, and not the States, must adopt a uniform standard for prohibited conduct as well as for a definition of the ``flag of the United States.'' I believe the amendment as it now stands is strengthened by these revisions. Although much has been said about how this amendment will put a muzzle on the first amendment, this is not true. The adoption of this amendment will not diminish the first amendment's hallowed place among our liberties. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson, the majority of the States had laws on their books which banned the desecration of the American flag. Prior to Johnson, free speech under the first amendment flourished, including unpopular opinions and political speech. I do not expect this to change once the amendment is adopted. The opponents have hinged their fight against this amendment on the decisions of the Supreme Court in two opinions. First is the case of Texas versus Johnson, a 5-to-4 decision, in which the Court held that a Texas statute protecting the flag granted it special legal protections which offended the Court's concept of free speech. Second is United States versus Eichman, in which the Supreme Court, again in a 5-to-4 decision, struck down a content neutral statute enacted by the Congress following the Johnson decision. In their dissent in Johnson, the Justices make clear the reasoning that I believe is behind many of the supporters of the amendment. Chief Justice Rehnquist for himself and Justices O'Connor and White stated: For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our Nation, a uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here. It is the flag's uniqueness which we realize makes it more than simply a piece of cloth that needs special protection. It is a symbol that stands for patriotism, love of country, sacrifice, freedom--values that are the essence of what it means to be an American. Senator McConnell has introduced a bill, S. 1335, which is designed as a statutory protection for the flag. While I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky, I do not believe that a statute would be upheld under the strict scrutiny of the Supreme Court. The Court in Eichman was clear that no statute will pass muster if it singles out the flag of the United States for protection against contemptuous abuse. S. 1335 invokes the fighting-words doctrine, and seeks to punish any person who destroys a U.S. flag ``with primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or breach of the peace.'' According to legal experts, the Supreme Court in Johnson expressly rejected the application of the fighting words or imminent breach of the peace rationales offered by the Texas statute. This precedence in hand along with other recent decisions of the Court will not allow this statute, if passed, to stand. It has been suggested that a statute which is facially neutral or content neutral could survive the strict scrutiny of the Supreme Court; I do not believe that is so. First, for the statute to be truly facially neutral it would have to ban any and all forms of destruction of the American flag. Second, a facially neutral statute which did not permit an exception for disposal of a worn or soiled American flag by burning would not be desirable nor acceptable to most Americans. Unfortunately, for the statute to be truly content or facially neutral, it could not allow for any intentional destruction of the flag, including the burning of a worn or soiled flag. Any variation from completely neutral language would undermine the entire statute and, in all likelihood, would be found to be in violation of the first amendment under the Court's strict scrutiny test. During the debate surrounding this amendment, a question has been raised as to precisely what conduct is prohibited under the amendment. It has been claimed that by using the term ``desecration,'' we would outlaw almost any use of the flag or its image outside of displaying it in a parade or on a flag pole. I think that this is an incorrect and unfair interpretation of the conduct we are attempting to prohibit. Those who interpret the language as overly broad have suggested that this amendment should be limited to outlawing only the burning, mutilation, or trampling of the flag. Although these are acts which I find despicable, I find acts such as spitting, urinating, wearing the flag as underwear to be equally outrageous. Unfortunately, under the limitations some have suggested to the amendment, these acts would be allowed. I do not think that this is what the American people had in mind in their support of this amendment. Since the Supreme Court persists in striking down State and Federal statutes, regardless of how carefully crafted those statutes are, we have no alternative. The only avenue which remains open for protecting the American flag from desecration is through the procedure required to amend the Constitution of the United States. This procedure is difficult, and for very good reasons. The last time an amendment was ratified was almost 4 years ago; that was the 27th amendment, which took over 200 years to ratify. Because of the sanctity of the Constitution, I do not take lightly an amendment, but as I stated, we have no alternative. I believe that the citizens of this Nation do not want to see the Constitution amended in most instances, but I also believe that they have shown through their actions that the protection of the flag is an important issue. Those actions include the grassroots support of groups such as the Alabama Department of Reserves Officers Association of the United States, which passed a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to pass this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of this resolution. By voting in support of this resolution we send this matter to the States and let the people in each State make the final decision on this important matter.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Heflin-Rose Peanut Program Improvement Act of 1995. Auburn University recently released a study based on the same economic impact model employed by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission to determine the effects of various proposals that were being considered before the Lugar-Armey peanut program compromise was reached and made part of the Roberts farm bill, which is part of the budget reconciliation bill. Using the figures and calculations of the Auburn report, the Lugar-Armey compromise would result in an industry- wide, negative economic impact totalling $375 million and will cause the loss of 5,400 jobs throughout the peanut industry. While the Lugar-Armey compromise is touted as an effort to achieve a no-net-cost program, in reality it will cost taxpayers $60 million over 7 years. As a matter of fact, the Lugar-Armey compromise actually kills the program over 7 years, encourages peanut imports, and cuts peanut farmer income by nearly 30 percent. Congressman Charlie Rose and I have worked on a peanut program which we feel is a much better bill. This proposal guarantees a no-net-cost program saves some $43 million above what the Lugar-Armey compromise saved. Our cost savings come from making foreign importers of peanuts pay the same assessments that U.S. peanut farmers have to pay and uses this money to offset the cost of the peanut program. In addition, to imposing assessments on importers, our proposal directs that the NAFTA and GATT revenue derived from imported peanuts go toward paying for the peanut program rather than reducing farmer income. The Heflin-Rose peanut program refrains from reducing farmer income by cutting the loan rate, and therefore, maintains the current law loan rate for quota and additional peanuts. Unlike the Lugar-Armey peanut program, which would allow unlimited cross-country transfers, the Heflin-Rose bill also measure infrastructure stability by permitting only limited transfers across county lines. Furthermore, our legislation addresses health and food safety concerns due to the increased level of imports resulting from GATT and NAFTA. The American peanut farmer is held to the highest safety and inspection levels of any domestically-produced commodity. To not require at least an equivalent level of protection from foreign-grown peanuts jeopardizes American consumers. For example, the Heflin-Rose bill requires that foreign-grown peanuts be inspected to determine whether or not they were produced with pesticides and other chemicals banned for use in this country. This legislation applies the same standards for quality, freedom from aflatoxin and procedures for the inspection and entry of imported peanuts that currently apply to domestically-produced peanuts under Marketing Agreement No. 146. Peanut farmers strongly support achieving a no-net-cost peanut program. However, this goal can be achieved without slashing farmer income and with consideration to the economic costs on the communities that work and depend on the production of peanuts. If the Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, then this is a plan that saves a significant amount above their proposal, ensures a no-net-cost peanut program, and preserves farmer income while safeguarding American consumers with food safety provisions for imported peanuts and peanut products.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Heflin-Rose Peanut Program Improvement Act of 1995. Auburn University recently released a study based on the same economic impact model employed by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission to determine the effects of various proposals that were being considered before the Lugar-Armey peanut program compromise was reached and made part of the Roberts farm bill, which is part of the budget reconciliation bill. Using the figures and calculations of the Auburn report, the Lugar-Armey compromise would result in an industry- wide, negative economic impact totalling $375 million and will cause the loss of 5,400 jobs throughout the peanut industry. While the Lugar-Armey compromise is touted as an effort to achieve a no-net-cost program, in reality it will cost taxpayers $60 million over 7 years. As a matter of fact, the Lugar-Armey compromise actually kills the program over 7 years, encourages peanut imports, and cuts peanut farmer income by nearly 30 percent. Congressman Charlie Rose and I have worked on a peanut program which we feel is a much better bill. This proposal guarantees a no-net-cost program saves some $43 million above what the Lugar-Armey compromise saved. Our cost savings come from making foreign importers of peanuts pay the same assessments that U.S. peanut farmers have to pay and uses this money to offset the cost of the peanut program. In addition, to imposing assessments on importers, our proposal directs that the NAFTA and GATT revenue derived from imported peanuts go toward paying for the peanut program rather than reducing farmer income. The Heflin-Rose peanut program refrains from reducing farmer income by cutting the loan rate, and therefore, maintains the current law loan rate for quota and additional peanuts. Unlike the Lugar-Armey peanut program, which would allow unlimited cross-country transfers, the Heflin-Rose bill also measure infrastructure stability by permitting only limited transfers across county lines. Furthermore, our legislation addresses health and food safety concerns due to the increased level of imports resulting from GATT and NAFTA. The American peanut farmer is held to the highest safety and inspection levels of any domestically-produced commodity. To not require at least an equivalent level of protection from foreign-grown peanuts jeopardizes American consumers. For example, the Heflin-Rose bill requires that foreign-grown peanuts be inspected to determine whether or not they were produced with pesticides and other chemicals banned for use in this country. This legislation applies the same standards for quality, freedom from aflatoxin and procedures for the inspection and entry of imported peanuts that currently apply to domestically-produced peanuts under Marketing Agreement No. 146. Peanut farmers strongly support achieving a no-net-cost peanut program. However, this goal can be achieved without slashing farmer income and with consideration to the economic costs on the communities that work and depend on the production of peanuts. If the Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, then this is a plan that saves a significant amount above their proposal, ensures a no-net-cost peanut program, and preserves farmer income while safeguarding American consumers with food safety provisions for imported peanuts and peanut products.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Let me----