Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, just before the sine die adjournment, the Alabama Business Hall of Fame at the University of Alabama announced that Goodwyn L. Myrick, the president and chief executive of the Alabama Farmers Federation and Alfa Insurance Co., would be inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. Goodwyn is a native of Etowah County, AL, where he was born in 1925. He established his first dairy herd in 1944 with eight cows. Today, M & H Farms--a partnership between Goodwyn, his son, Greg, his daughter, Donna, and son-in-law, Tony Haynes--has over 400 Holstein dairy cows and 700 head of beef cattle. It encompasses two farms and more than 2,000 acres. In 1978, he was elected president of the Alabama Farmers Federation, and is currently serving his ninth term as president of the federation and Alfa Insurance Co. During his tenure, Alfa has had the greatest amount of storm losses and the greatest amount of growth in its history, with $267 million in losses since 1978. At the same time, it has grown by 1,000 percent. The Alabama Farmers Federation has seen its membership grow from 223,000 in 1980 to nearly 400,000 today. Goodwyn's previous positions include president of the Etowah County Farm Bureau Federation; the board of directors of the Alabama Farm Bureau Federation--predecessor organization to the Alabama Farmers Federation; and vice president of the federation. Considered one of the most influential businessmen in the State, Goodwyn joins the ranks of over 100 other distinguished corporate leaders in the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. These previous inductees include George Washington Carver, Winton ``Red'' Blount, and Aaron Aronov. I am pleased to commend and congratulate Goodwyn Myrick for receiving this most-deserved honor. The agricultural community of Alabama has never had such a strong leader and loyal friend.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, just before the sine die adjournment, the Alabama Business Hall of Fame at the University of Alabama announced that Bill Mitchell would be one of its inductees this year. Bill is the retired president of First National Bank of Florence, which is now SunTrust Bank. This University of Alabama Law School graduate has spent his life serving his community. He has served as president of the Muscle Shoals, Alabama, Regional Library Board, the Florence Chamber of Commerce, the Florence Rotary Club, and the Lauderdale County Chapter of the American Red Cross. Bill has also been a member of the board of directors of the Alabama State Chamber of Commerce, the Alabama Department of Archives and History Board of Trustees, the University of Alabama System Board of Trustees, the University of Alabama College of Commerce and Business Administration Board of Visitors, and the University of North Alabama president's cabinet. His rich heritage suits this honor well. He still attends First Presbyterian Church in Florence, where his great-grandfather, a Scotch- Irish immigrant, served as pastor during the 1850's. His grandfather served as a probate judge, a representative in the Alabama Legislature, and State tax commissioner. His father served in the State senate and as president of the Alabama State Bar. Bill earned a noncombatant Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster and a Legion of Merit award for his service during World War II. Before going into banking, he practiced law in Florence from 1946 to 1958. According to an Alabama Business Hall of Fame report, the purpose of this award is to honor ``the names and accomplishments of the State's most distinguished business leaders.'' Bill Mitchell certainly fits this description. He has succeeded by following his own advice: ``Learn a lot about a lot of things, work hard and get to know people.'' He is a living example of the wisdom of that advice, for he has practiced it and lived it throughout his life. In fact, few people have been as instrumental in making the city of Florence what it is today as he has. He has been involved in virtually every organized effort aimed at improving the quality of life for its residents. He has a lengthy list of leadership positions and career positions. He has often been called upon to serve as the president of charitable and civic organizations like those mentioned above. He has made his mark in business and has served his family and church faithfully. I am pleased to commend and congratulate Bill Mitchell for being inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. He continues to bring honor to his city and its citizens who have been the beneficiaries of his many years of outstanding and selfless service.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, just before the sine die adjournment, the Alabama Business Hall of Fame at the University of Alabama announced that the late Marshall B. Durbin, Sr., would be inducted posthumously into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. Marshall Durbin was the sort of business visionary blessed with the ability to turn his dreams into the reality of accomplishments. Born to O.C. Durbin and Ola Culp Durbin February 27, 1901, in Chilton County, AL, Marshall Durbin, Sr., passed away in November 1971, leaving behind him then four brothers, five sisters, a widow, a son, and what is now one of the top poultry companies in the United States, with facilities in three States, markets as far flung as Russia and the Far East, annual sales of about $200 million, and more than 2,200 employees. To gain a more complete understanding of Marshall Durbin, Sr., it helps to turn the pages of history back to the late 1920's when the enterprising young Alabamian--whose formal education ended at third grade--moved off the family farm to the big city of Birmingham to enter the real estate business. But the stock market crash of October 1929, followed by the Great Depression, led him quickly to the conclusion that this would not be the most profitable course to follow. Reviewing his options, Mr. Durbin decided that regardless of economic conditions, ``People will want to eat.'' So in 1930, with $500 in funds borrowed from his bride, the late Eula Sims Durbin, he established a retail fish stand. Two years later, he added poultry--and a second stand. From those small retail stands Marshall Durbin Cos., grew into its present-day status as a vertically integrated company, complete with its own hatcheries, breeder flocks, contract growers, warehouses, processing plants, cooking plants, feed mills, fleet, and distribution facilities. The growth in Marshall Durbin Sr.'s business was mirrored by that of the Alabama poultry industry, which today has a major impact on the State's economy. By producing more than 882 million broilers, it provides employment for some 55,000 Alabamians and income for almost 4,000 farmers--and has a total industry impact of almost $7.5 billion. During his years of industry leadership Mr. Durbin actively supported organizations that would contribute to its growth--and the growth of his State. For example, he was a cofounder of the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, served as president of the Alabama Poultry Processors Association and was cofounder of the Alabama Poultry Industry Association. On the national level, he was a cofounder of the National Broiler Council and the first president of the National Broiler Marketing Association, plus he served 15 years as a member of the board of directors of the Institute of American Poultry Industries. ``His principle business philosophy was hard work and lots of it,'' remembers Marshall B. Durbin, Jr., who succeeded his father as head of Marshall Durbin Cos., after working in the business with him for many years. ``In the early years, he would be on the streets making personal calls to hotels and restaurants at 4 a.m.--calling on the chefs in person. There was a lot of competition, and often the company that got the business was the first one there. ``He always tried to be the first one there.'' Mr. Marshall, Junior, is a very good friend of mine and we have talked extensively about his father and his legacy over the years. Another place Marshall Durbin came in first was in his belief that chicken could be a viable business in the South. In the pre-World War II era, the Midwest seemingly had a lock on the market due to the producers' close proximity to ample supplies of corn and grain. Mr. Durbin worked long and hard to help convince railway companies to move to larger railcars and concurrently reduce rates, selling them on the argument that by the reduction they could increase volume and profits. This led to a shift in agricultural economics, with the South producing more chickens and the Midwest focusing its efforts on growing more corn and soybean to feed those chickens. He also led the way in promoting the nutritional value of chicken; it was at his urging in the early 1960's that the National Broiler Council initiated, with Kellogg's Corn Flakes and the Cling Peach Association a joint advertising program centered around this theme and aimed at women's magazines. Mr. Marshall, Junior, also remembers his father, who over the years furthered his education with such readings as ``Plutarch's Lives'' and Will Durant's ``The Story of Civilization'', as a fair man. ``He was a good leader--a fair leader. I remember him as stern but friendly. Of course as happens in most businesses we sometimes disagreed on how things should be done because of the generational differences. But I can remember that for a while after he died when I had a problem I would still find myself getting up and going into his vacant office to ask for advice * * * by then I had learned that his counsel was generally right.'' The son says he believes his father, who in his later years found time for fishing and always reserved his Sundays to take his granddaughters to the zoo and then out for hamburgers, would most like to be remembered for the way he helped set the course for the poultry industry in not only Alabama and the Southeast, but in the United States. Perhaps Marshall Durbin, Senior's most significant legacy in that regard stemmed from his tenure on the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Advisory Committee in the middle 1960's. At the time, the USDA was in the process of introducing a proposal to impose production quotas and price controls on the poultry industry. Having seen what a detrimental effect similar policy measures had wreaked on the cotton industry, Mr. Durbin used his membership on the National Advisory Committee to position himself in the leadership of the opposition to quotas. The result of those months of work in Washington, DC, are still felt today. Thanks to the efforts of Marshall Durbin, Senior and those who worked with him, no lids were imposed on poultry-production, and unlike King Cotton, long ago dethroned in the world market, the poultry business has grown exponentially. For example, when Mr. Durbin went to Washington to first battle for this cause, the United States was producing 2.3 billion chickens annually, while in 1995 some 7.3 billion birds were produced. And over the years, Alabama has been the beneficiary of much of this growth--as is evidenced by the fact it is now the third largest poultry-producing State in the Nation. Even 25 years ago the relevance of Marshall Durbin Senior's national policy work in the District of Columbia was well known. As then said the Southeastern Poultry Times, ``His influence there was credited with helping to keep the poultry industry free of production and price controls and today the poultry industry is among the remaining `free enterprise' industries of agriculture.'' Around the State, his efforts were also well recognized, as evidenced by his 1969 induction in the Alabama Poultry Hall of Fame. And upon his death in 1971, the trade magazine ``Broiler Industry'' drew upon the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson to best capture the industry leaders' accomplishments, writing, ``if, as Emerson said, `an institution is lengthened by the shadow of one man,' then Marshall Durbin, Sr., was such a man * * * he was a man who always knew where he was going, and how he was going to get there--a true natural leader * * *. He was one of the best integrated broiler operators in the United States.'' But perhaps the final tribute to Marshall Durbin, Senior, is that he gave his vision the roots to continue to grow.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as the end of the 104th Congress was drawing to a close, I began making a series of speeches summarizing my activities and legislative efforts relating to some of the major policy issue areas facing our Nation. My purpose was to reflect upon and generally summarize my three terms in the Senate, pointing out progress, key accomplishments, disappointments, and suggestions for the future. So far, I have focused on the areas of civil rights and national defense and foreign policy. Here, I will devote some attention to my role as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Much of my statement on civil rights issues focused on activities within the Judiciary Committee, since these issues often arise in the context of court cases and nominations. I will reiterate some of that material here, but will focus more on court reform and the administration of justice, issues which were not discussed at length in that statement on civil rights. While serving as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, my primary goal was to modernize the State's system of justice. The backlog of cases when I came into office was staggering, so we set out immediately to pass reform of the judicial article, which is the part of the State constitution outlining the State judiciary. During my term, we were successful in getting the people to adopt a new article to the State's constitution in the form of a constitutional amendment which was known as the new judicial article and in getting the State legislature to pass a judicial article implementation bill, which some say became a model for the Nation. I was extremely proud of our efforts and of the many hundreds of people who came together to make it happen. I saw first-hand that State courts can be made more efficient and citizens' access to the courts increased. Upon arriving in the Senate, I quickly saw that much of the reform we accomplished at the State level was needed at the Federal level. Much of my work on the Judiciary Committee has focused on bringing these reforms to the Federal court system. As a member, chairman, and ranking member of the subcommittee overseeing the courts and judicial administration, I have had the opportunity to seek many much-needed improvements in the administration of justice. Since judicial administration is so important to access to the judicial system, it is my firm belief that efficient administration is a necessary component of swift and sure justice for all those who seek it. Since time and space will not permit me to be as comprehensive in summarizing these various issues as I would like, I ask unanimous consent that a summary listing of legislation I have introduced, cosponsored, or directly shaped in some way be included in the Congressional Record after my remarks. However, I would like to summarize some of the highlights in these areas. One of the major efforts was in the area of bankruptcy reform. Passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 brought to a close nearly 5 years of work in this area. Over these several years, we were able to produce the first major substantive change in the Bankruptcy Code since 1984. We successfully streamlined and updated the code. The need for a major reform of the code became apparent with the record increases in bankruptcy filings the courts had been experiencing. There was a need for changes in the code which recognized the changes in the economy and different types of financial arrangement faced by consumers and businesses. Our act addressed virtually all aspects of bankruptcy, including provisions which made significant and important changes to the bankruptcy process in our Federal courts. Also included were provisions which streamlined the process for the individual consumer debtor through the encouragement of the use of chapter 13 repayment bankruptcy provisions. The commercial bankruptcy process and procedure was also addressed. I am particularly proud that a Bankruptcy Review Commission was set up to review and study the laws and process related to bankruptcy filings. Overall, these reforms have led to a more effective and workable process. In the 96th Congress, I introduced a bill to divide the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals into two courts. Its main purpose was to promote judicial efficiency. Individual judges in the fifth circuit were severely burdened by an excessively large caseload. Furthermore, the entire court had accrued the largest en blanc caseload in U.S. judicial history. The measure splitting the circuit and creating the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was signed into law in October 1980. In the 97th Congress, I was a cosponsor of the Omnibus Victims Protection Act of 1982, which provided additional protection and assistance to victims and witnesses in Federal cases. I was also proud to have been a moving force in the establishment of a State Justice institute in 1984 during the 98th Congress, and in the passage of an act amending title 18 of the United States Code to ban the production and use of advertisements for child pornography or solicitations for child pornography. This became law in November 1986, at the end of the 99th Congress. I have always been firmly committed to measures which ensure the free and open exercise of religion. In 1988, during the 100th Congress, an act to impose criminal penalties and to provide a civil action for damage to religious property and for injury to persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs was passed by Congress and signed into law. Later, in the 103d Congress, my subcommittee held hearings on proposed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] guidelines which many felt would have adversely affected Federal workers' rights to express their religious beliefs in the workplace. Ultimately, we were successful in preventing these guidelines from taking effect. This year, in the wake of the rash of church burnings in the South, I strongly supported the legislation to increase penalties for those convicted of destroying houses of worship through arson. During the 101st Congress, I was extremely proud of being a cosponsor of a comprehensive act containing three major parts. One was the Civil Justice Reform Act, which required selected U.S. courts to implement expense and delay reduction plans. A second part was the Federal judgeships Act, which created 85 new judgeships, thereby streamlining efficiency. The third major part of this act was the Federal Courts Study Committee Implementation Act, which put into place a number of the committee's recommendations. The act, which became Public Law 101- 650 on December 1, 1990, also contained provisions dealing with television violence, computer software rental, judicial discipline, and the rights of visual artists. One of the proudest achievements of my career occurred during the 102nd Congress, with the passage of my bill to name a Federal building in Montgomery, AL, after Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Judge Johnson, one of the greatest jurists to have ever served on the Federal bench, did so much to promote racial progress in Alabama and the rest of the South that I could think of no more fitting tribute to honor his work and service. It became law on March 20, 1992. A new Federal courthouse was built in Birmingham and later named the Hugo Black Courthouse and the Montgomery courthouse is now being expanded. That same year, the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992 was signed into law (P.L. 102-572, October 29, 1992). This law encompassed four bills I sponsored: the Federal Courts Study Committee Implementation Act, the Judicial Survivors' Annuities Improvements Act, the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act, and the Court of Claims Technical and Procedural Improvements Act. It also contained a provision cosponsored by myself and Senator Grassley which created a new civil cause of action in Federal court for victims of international terrorism. I supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which, among other things, provided funding for 100,000 policemen for communities all across the Nation. While there were several provisions in this bill with which I strongly disagreed, on balance, its good provisions far outweighed its bad. I saw it as a positive and comprehensive effort to stop the onslaught of crime and drugs in our society. Of course, there have been disappointments over the years, such as the failure to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning and one to require a balanced Federal budget. I and many others in Congress worked long and hard to pass these measures, and they came close in the most recent 104th Congress. I think especially in terms of the balanced budget amendment, that we will ultimately be successful. I will continue doing all in my power as a private citizen to see that these amendments are added to our Constitution. Much of my time and energy in the 104th Congress was spent on a bill to establish an independent Court of Administrative Law Judges. I have always thought it absurd that Federal agencies were allowed to judge cases involving themselves and outside parties. How can a ``judge'', employed by the agency he is serving, be expected to decide cases fairly and impartially? The bureaucrats fought this proposal tenaciously, and again, we were unsuccessful. We did, however, come closer in 1996 than ever before, and I remain hopeful that the next Congress will see the wisdom of ensuring independence in Federal administrative law. Another item which ultimately failed in the 104th Congress was comprehensive regulatory reform. I joined with Senators Dole and Johnston in seeking to provide a cost-benefit analysis in terms of certain regulations whose economic impact exceeded $100 million. Regulatory reform should remain at the top of the congressional agenda. One issue on which its opponents, including myself, were successful on was in preventing product liability reform from passing. So-called product liability reform legislation was billed as an effort to rein in errant juries and limit excessive awards to plaintiffs. While I do support tort reform, I believe it should be done at the State level and without weakening the jury system. The right of trial by jury is one of the most sacred rights we have as Americans, and nothing should be done to limit that right or restrict a citizen's access to the judicial system. The federalized product liability reform bills contained many provisions which would have immunized many tortfeasors in a manner which was grossly unfair. This type of legislation should continue to be defeated so that our jury system--imperfect as it may be--remains strong and the bulwark of our system of justice. In 1979, I convinced members of the Judiciary Committee to kill the court annexed arbitration bill, which would force parties in personal injury, property, and contract cases under $100,000 to submit to mandatory arbitration in Federal court. I believed this bill was unconstitutional because it would deny the guarantee of a jury trial and the constitutional right of access to justice. An arbitration bill which doesn't penalize a party from seeking a trail de novo will go a long way toward minimizing the faults of the proposal. In 1979, Congress passed an amended Federal Magistrates bill, which became Public Law 96-82. When it was first introduced, I criticized it as the third piece of a haphazard modification to the system in 10 years. Rather than amending it piecemeal, lawmakers should study and approach the whole system. In 1979, we passed a law, Public Law 96-43, to amend the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 in order to limit the delay from charge to trial in the Federal courts to no more than 100 days. In 1979, I opposed the Illinois Brick bill. After studying the case carefully, I concluded that Justice Byron White had issued a correct decision. I was fearful that if this legislation were adopted, class action antitrust cases would completely occupy the time of Federal judges and require a many-fold increase in the number of Federal judges in a short time. In 1979, when it passed the judiciary committee, I called the Equal Access to Justice Act one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen. The bill would have allowed citizens whom the Government had taken to court unjustifiably or who contested unreasonable regulations to recover attorney fees. In other words, if a citizen is proven right, he doesn't have to pay for justice. The House never acted on this bill. But in 1985, Congress passed Public Law 99-80, similar to the Equal Access to Justice Act. This law allowed local governments, individuals, and small businesses to collect attorneys' fees if they won cases against Federal agencies. In 1979, Congress passed the Justice System Improvement Act, Public Law 96-157, to reauthorize the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. This bill created the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics [OJARS] which would coordinate the administration of the LEAA and two other, new agencies, the Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS] and the National Institute of Justice [NIJ]. I had become a strong supporter of the LEAA during my tenure as the chief justice of the supreme court. In Alabama, our police and sheriff departments had been largely underfunded, undermanned, undertrained and unprofessional, but with the LEAA's help, they developed into well-disciplined and professional organizations. Unfortunately, the LEAA died in 1980 during budget debate. In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to create the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which became Public Law 96-452. The old Fifth Circuit, which comprised six States, had become so overburdened that it could no longer handle its caseload. In fact, its en banc caseload was the largest in the country. We did have a great concern in the Congress about the implications of the split to civil rights, since this court generally handled the most important civil rights cases. Judge Frank Johnson served as an excellent advisor for the Court to ensure that the Congress handled the split with care. In 1980, the Senate passed a bill calling for a ``State of the Judiciary'' speech by the Chief Justice. Congress as a whole largely ignores the third branch until some crisis situation demands that we provide additional Federal judges or implement some reorganization. This idea has not yet materialized into law, but I still think it is a good plan. In 1980, I introduced another bill to create a National Court of Appeals to relieve the overburdened Supreme Court. During 1979, the Court heard less than 7 percent of the cases before it. This bill never passed either, but in the future, the Congress must arrive at some solution to the overwhelming caseload of the Court. In 1982, we introduced legislation to amend Federal habeas corpus procedures by restricting the power of the Federal courts to review and overturn State criminal convictions. There is a crying need to achieve finality in our criminal justice system and to protect the integrity of the State judiciary. I had also included certain provisions regarding habeas corpus procedures in my Federal court study implementation bill. The Republican 104th Congress passed some provisions relating to habeas corpus reform, but it contained a number of questionable provisions. Provisions to create a State Justice Institute, which I had first introduced in 1980, became part of Public Law 98-620. Specifically, with the Institute, we sought to provide education for judges and officers of the courts of the States as well as sound proceedings for managing and monitoring caseloads, and improvement of access to justice. Hoping to adhere to the doctrine of federalism and separation of powers, we designed the Institute to assure strong and effective State courts, and thereby improve the quality of justice available to the American people. These ends were all the more important since recently enacted Federal laws, including the speedy trial act, had increased the cases sent to State courts. This law also amended title 28, United States Code, with respect to the places where court shall be held in certain judicial districts. It also included several other provisions. The first established an Intercircuit Tribunal. The second clarified the circumstances under which a trademark may be canceled or abandoned. The last pertained to the authority of the special counsel. In 1980, Congress passed a bill to cut costs and delays in antitrust trials. This bill became Public Law 96-349. In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to create a U.S. Court of International Trade and to reform the judiciary machinery relating to trade. This bill became Public Law 96-417. In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to make certain that Federal courts hear all cases under their jurisdiction. Before this bill passed, the amount in controversy determined whether or not a Federal court would hear any given case. This bill became Public Law 96-486. In 1982, Congress created the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A new law, Public Law 97-164, combined the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the U.S. Court of Claims. The new court had the same authority as the other 12 U.S. Circuits, but its jurisdiction was national, rather than regional, and determined by subject matter. During hearings in the 96th Congress, I declared that it was time to declare a war on crime, and in the following Congress I introduced a number of measures I hoped might effectively reduce it. Elements of my package became law over the years immediately following. Public Law 97- 285 set penalties for crimes against cabinet officers, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidential staff members. Public Law 97-291 created additional protections for and assistance to victims and witnesses in Federal cases. Public Law 98-127 dealt with tampering, as in the case of the Tylenol murders. Public Law 98-292 was designed to fight the sexual exploitation of children. Public Law 98-305 criminalized the robbery of a controlled substance. In October 1984, several other elements of my war on crime package became Public Law 98-473. This law included the Justice Assistance Act to provide aid to State law enforcement, after the model of the defunct LEAA. It provided for victims' compensation. The law also included mandatory sentencing for use of firearms in a Federal crime, and other sentencing guidelines including the creation of a sentencing commission to establish standards for punishment in Federal crimes. Further, it provided for Federal prosecution of murders-for-hire, drug trafficking, pharmacy robbery, labor racketeering, computer fraud, and assaults on Federal officials. Last, the law included provisions which shifted the burden of proof in the insanity defense to the defendant. The Hinckley acquittal inspired this language. However, the act contained some questionable provisions which I opposed. In 1984, Congress passed a bill to amend the Clayton Act, relating to antitrust laws, as it applied to local governments. In 1984, Congress, passed Public Law 98-547 to fight auto thefts in which the criminals stripped and sold the vehicle as spare parts. The law required identifying numbers on the major parts. In 1985, we extended the deadline for the sentencing commission, created by Public Law 98-473, to finalize its guidelines. This extension was included in Public Law 99-417. Another law, Public Law 99-22, made minor changes to the commission. In 1985, we passed another law, Public Law 99-218, regarding the Supreme Court Police and its authority to protect the Justices and officers of the Court. In 1986, we passed Public Law 99-303 to fight sexual molestation in Indian Country. In 1986, we reformed Federal justice and judges survivors' annuities with Public Law 99-336. That year, we also amended the False Claims Act with Public Law 99- 562 to strengthen enforcement provisions for making false claims to the Federal Government. This bill also included protections for whistleblowers, something that we had worked on for a long time. In our view, these protections were particularly important in preventing Government waste, in the Defense Department, and in other areas. In 1986, we banned advertisements for child pornography with Public Law 99-628. In 1986, Congress improved the delivery of legal services to indigents with Public Law 99-651. In 1987, Congress passed Public Law 100-236 to amend the laws governing multiple appeals filed on orders from Federal agencies. Until that time, lawyers frequently filed appeals in different courthouses in order to draw a judge they thought would be favorable to their case. The new laws allow 10 days to appeal an order, and created a lottery system for selection of the judge if multiple appeals were filed. In 1987, I introduced legislation to change the administrative law system. Congress has considered this language several times since, but it has not yet passed a bill. Administrative Law Judges are employed and housed by the agencies they oversee. This system represents a clear conflict of interest. I believe that judges must, instead, be independent, and for this reason I sought to create an independent corps of administrative law judges. I strongly recommend that Congress address the problem in the future. In 1988, Congress passed the Permanent Federal Court Study Act, which I had originally introduced during 1980 as part of a package which had included the unsuccessful National Court of Appeals. The Federal court study committee language became part of Public Law 100-702. We designed the Federal court study committee to plan for the long range needs of the judiciary. I believe that reform must keep costs in mind, and it must avoid a careless, band-aid approach. These two conditions are required if we are to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Public Law 100-702 also included other significant provisions. It raised jurisdictional authority in Federal diversity cases from $10,000 to $50,000. It also reauthorized the State Justice Institute, created pilot programs of voluntary court-annexed arbitration, resolved district court jurisdictions under the Tucker Act, established methods of adopting recommendations of the Judicial Conference, and reformed jury selection. In a letter addressed to me, Chief Justice Rehnquist called the bill ``probably the most significant measure affecting the operation and administration of the Federal Judiciary to be considered by the Congress in over a decade.'' Rehnquist also wrote that passage of the bill ``with its many and varied provisions to improve different aspects of the judicial system, will significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Federal Judiciary as a whole.'' In 1988, Congress passed another bill which had been part of the 1980 package which ultimately became Public Law 100-702. This bill gave the Supreme Court greater discretion in selection of its cases. This language took 8 years to pass, but it finally became part of Public Law 100-352. In 1988, the Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which became Public Law 100-690. This new law included the creation of a drug czar, which had been eliminated from my 1984 crime package. This new law also included the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Partnership Act and the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. In 1988, Congress passed a new law, Public Law 100-694, to protect Federal employees from the threat of lawsuits based on their work performance. The bill was designed to overturn the 1988 Supreme Court decision, Westfall versus Erwin. In 1988, we passed Public Law 100-700 to make it a crime to knowingly defraud or attempt to defraud the Government in contracts of $1 million or more. I strongly supported a constitutional amendment to ban flagburning in the late 1980's, and I spent a great deal of time on it in the most recent Congress. In 1990, Congress authorized the appointment of 74 new U.S. district and 11 new U.S. circuit judges with Public Law 101-650. Importantly, this new law also incorporated the Judicial Discipline Reform Act to improve procedures for disciplining Federal judges, and to establish a National Commission on Judicial Discipline. The final language to discipline judges short of impeachment was the culmination of years of work that had included a proposed constitutional amendment. I had also proposed another constitutional amendment in 1988 to reform the actual impeachment proceedings, which had proven themselves to be cumbersome. Public Law 101-650 contained some other miscellaneous provisions. The law also contained language to address television violence by removing from antitrust laws any cooperation within the industry to reduce it. The law included provisions to deal with computer software copyright laws. This bill also contains S. 1198, the Visual Artists Rights Act, which gives creators of certain artistic visual works the right to prevent modification or destruction of their work. In 1992, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Technical Amendments Act, Public Law 102-354, to make technical corrections to Chapter 5 of title 5, U.S.C. This law also amended the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (Public Law 101-552) to authorize Federal agencies to resolve disputes between two other parties. In 1992, Congress passed the ``Dead-Beat Dad'' bill. This became Public Law 102-521. In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, which became Public Law 102-572. This law was actually a conglomerate of several bills. It codified certain recommendations of the Federal Courts Study Committee, which I believe had turned out to be a valuable experiment. It reformed the judicial survivors' annuities system. It reauthorized the State Justice Institute for fiscal years 1993-1996. It altered the claims litigation procedure before a newly renamed U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Public Law 102-572 also included language Senator Grassley and I wrote in order to create a new civil cause of action in Federal court for victims of international terrorism. In 1992, Congress passed a bill to authorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. This legislation became Public Law 102-586. With Public Law 103-192, Congress extended pilot arbitration programs in 20 district courts for one year. Public Law 103-420 reauthorized 10 mandatory and 10 voluntary court annexed arbitration pilot programs, and authorized the judiciary automation fund. It also extended the deadline for the Rand Corp.'s study of civil litigation. Public Law 103-305 changed the rules on the EEOC's guidelines regarding religious harassment in the workplace. With this law, we sought to allow personal expressions of religious belief, which until that time had been prohibited. Similar language had stalled in the 102d Congress due to abortion controversies. bankruptcy Our work in the Senate significantly affected the language in Public Law 96-56. This bill (H.R. 2807) originated in the House to amend the Bankruptcy Act to prohibit the discharge of federally insured or guaranteed student loans until 5 years after graduation. The Bankruptcy Reform Act (Public Law 95-598) had repealed this prohibition until the first day of fiscal year 1980, but Congress filled the gap with H.R. 2807. Specifically, before we attached our amendment in the Senate, the bill would only have covered loans repayable directly to the Federal Government or to a nonprofit educational institution. In 1984, we passed a much more significant bankruptcy measure to bring Federal bankruptcy courts in line with the Supreme Court's Marathon decision. This bill became Public Law 98-353. With Marathon, the Court ruled that 1978 bankruptcy law was unconstitutional because the bankruptcy judges, who are not appointed for life, should not have the same authority as other judges. The bill put bankruptcy under the jurisdiction of the district courts, but gave the article I bankruptcy judges the power to hear these cases. With this law, we averted the need to appoint 200 new article III judges for life. Notably, with this bankruptcy legislation, we also sought to protect farmers, catfish growers, and shrimpers who lost their crops in a processing or storage facility which went bankrupt. Further, the legislation was designed to prevent drunk drivers from escaping their liability through bankruptcy laws. Passage of this bill took time, however, and under the Marathon decision, the extant system would collapse--leaving half a million unheard cases. For this reason, until the major bill became law, we needed to extend the temporary arrangement twice. We accomplished the extension with Public Law 98-249 and Public Law 98-271. Another bankruptcy law which passed in 1984, Public Law 98-531, clarified laws on retirement for bankruptcy judges. In 1986, the Congress passed another major bankruptcy law. This law, Public Law 99-554, provided for the appointment of 52 additional bankruptcy judges. The law also allowed for the appointment of trustees under the Department of Justice to handle the administration of bankruptcy cases. Last, the bill paid special attention to small farmers who went bankrupt and included language to help them avoid liquidation. Two other bankruptcy bills became law in 1987. Public Law 100-99 pertained to protections under title 11. Public Law 100-202 included language to specify salaries for magistrates and bankruptcy judges. There were four more bankruptcy bills which became law in 1988. The first clarified laws pertaining to insurance benefits under the bankruptcy code for retirees. It became Public Law 100-334. A second authorized additional bankruptcy judges in Colorado, Kansas, Texas, Alaska, and Kentucky. This bill became Public Law 100-587. A third clarified the bankruptcy laws as they applied to municipalities, including changes to the laws governing their bond issues for public works. It became Public Law 100-597. Last, Congress passed legislation to provide for retirement and survivors' annuity for bankruptcy judges and magistrates, etc. This bill became Public Law 100-569. In 1990, we passed a bill to clarify the laws governing swap agreements and forward contracts. It became Public Law 101-311. That year, Congress also passed a law to prohibit drunk-drivers from discharging debts arising from their actions under chapter 13. This became Public Law 101-581. The 1990 crime bill included some bankruptcy provisions pertaining to the collection of debts to the U.S. Government and the discharge of debts in bankruptcy. This bill became Public Law 101-647. In 1992, Congress passed a bill to authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges. This bill became Public Law 102-361. Alabama was to receive another bankruptcy judge for the Northern district. 1994 saw the passage of a major bankruptcy reform bill. This bill became Public Law 103-394. It modified provisions concerning the rights of debtors and creditors and altered the relationship between secured and unsecured creditors. It increased the efficiency of the business reorganization procedures. It encouraged the use of procedures that allow individual debtors to pay their debts over time instead of facing liquidation. It also created a bankruptcy review commission to report on needed substantive changes. The bill sought to modernize the administration of the bankruptcy process by establishing clear authority for bankruptcy courts to manage their dockets activity through the use of status conferences. The bill strengthened extant law to encourage Federal appeals courts to establish a bankruptcy appellate panel to promote expedient bankruptcy appeals.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, at the beginning of my first term, my appointment to the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space was beneficial, primarily because my home State of Alabama contains the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Alabama is historically an economically disadvantaged State, and by creating a high-technology corridor through northern Alabama, we have been able to provide jobs at NASA and the defense and space-related activities in the area. Alabama is now near the top of the list in terms of the number of high-technology industries. But in fairness, it should be understood that a Senator learns to have a dual purpose in what he does. It may sound cynical to say that I was working for my own State and my own electorate, but that was my job. I didn't have any particular expertise in the Space Program before arriving here, but learned about it because it was important to Alabama. My predecessor in the Senate, John Sparkman, had also taken an interest in space policy. He was a native of Huntsville. While serving on this subcommittee, an appreciation of the national, and in fact global, need to pursue the study and exploration of space and also an appreciation of the need to travel in space in order to expand the scope of humanity became more clear to me. Joe Moquin and Charles Grainger, who represented the Federal Affairs Division of the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, as well as others, were helpful as I studied these exciting issues. Recent advances at NASA highlight these needs powerfully. Our voyages to Mars, combined with a recent discovery on Earth, have allowed us to deduce that life may have existed on another planet. The Hubble space telescope has given us a better understanding of the universe. The space station, which is now called Alpha, will allow Americans to stay in space permanently and conduct manned scientific experiments. Many have complained that the space program is too expensive and it yields little for the investment. But the space program provides a far greater return than its cost. Satellites have redefined the way we communicate, and they have reshaped our economy. However, even this immediately practical benefit is outweighed by other, more intangible gains. The knowledge we can gain in physics and technology has proved itself nearly unlimited. And there are unexpected benefits of the program, including what we can learn about our own planet, the advances we can make in the field of medical research, and the international diplomacy we will develop with the space station. I want to take some time here to summarize my activities relative to the space program, particularly regarding the space station and Marshall Space Flight Center. On a personal level, I am proudest of being the first Senator to call for and push for the development of a space station and also to have been a strong supporter of the shuttle program. Marshall has been central in both of these projects, and members of the Alabama congressional delegation have done our best to see that this remains the case. Maintaining the independence and viability of NASA has been one of my top priorities. The agency has suffered a number of public relations problems in recent years, beginning with the Challenger explosion, followed by the failure of the Mars orbiter, and highlighted by the initial embarrassment of the Hubble telescope. But even before these setbacks, the military space budget had grown larger than NASA's. Of course, I have advocated ABM defenses, including some space-based projects for the future, longer than any other Senator. But NASA's civilian, independent status is necessary for the space program. For this reason, it was necessary to oppose intrusions such as military control of the heavy lift launch vehicle, which was proposed after the shuttle disaster, and each year, to work as hard as possible to see that NASA received the money it needed to continue to serve as a viable agency and to accomplish its specific aims. Of course, it is NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the universities and businesses in Alabama who deserve the real credit. They are the minds who develop this astounding technology and reshaped the State. As a Senator, my aim was to do everything possible to support them consistently. In 1979, we worked to ensure that the Commerce Committee approved a $185 million supplemental authorization for Marshall to develop the space shuttle. In fact, the overall funding for the center had increased by $100 million since the previous year. We also worked to persuade the members of the Appropriations Committee to fund the shuttle, and they provided nearly our full request. My subcommittee also approved $5 million for the gamma ray observatory project, to be developed at Marshall and launched by the space shuttle, and it authorized a fifth shuttle and a national oceanic satellite system. However, the full committee cut these three programs, so we set out to be certain that they would pass in later years. In 1980, the Commerce Committee approved an authorization to build a fifth shuttle, but the conference committee dropped it in the final bill. However, the Congress did pass increases for NASA over the administration's request. In the committee, my amendment to add $12 million to the NASA budget to begin development of the solar electric propulsion system--called SEPS--at the Marshall Center was attached. The program was a $300 million program, spread over 5 years. Although it was originally in the fiscal 1981 budget, OMB had eliminated it over NASA's objections. This reusable system offered the high energy to fly demanding and complex missions that would otherwise require several expensive and expendable stages. That year, both Houses passed authorizations for this program. Both Houses also passed authorizations for the gamma ray observatory and the national oceanic satellite system. That same year, at a subcommittee hearing in Huntsville, I urged NASA to increase laser research and development at the Marshall Center. My argument for the increase was that the Soviets were spending at least three to five times America's $5 million annual budget on laser development. The continued research and development of laser technology was only one of the goals for the United States in the 1980's, but the potential benefits of laser power in both military and civilian applications mandate an accelerated interest by the scientific and industrial communities. This hearing was part of a series conducted largely to investigate the potential of lasers in defense. However, the applications of lasers seemed worthy of investigation for civilian purposes. Testimony revealed the possibility that lasers might be used to generate vast amounts of power. This power might be used in space propulsion systems. In fact, at these hearings, witnesses speculated that lasers might even ultimately be used to facilitate nuclear fusion. That year, we also highlighted international pressures to increase overall funding for NASA. In the years since the Moon missions, America had seemed preeminent in space, but the reality was that we had begun to fall behind the Russians. Senators John Glenn and Jack Schmitt, both former astronauts, appeared on my television show, the ``Heflin Report,'' to discuss the U.S. space program as compared to the Soviets. The United States had launched only 16 times in 1979 contrasted by the Russians' 87. In fact, the Russians had launched many more times over the previous 15 years. In 1981, Columbia flew its first mission, showcasing the Marshall Space Center's work. This next giant step in America's ongoing adventure in space would not have been possible without the men and women in Huntsville who developed the shuttle's engines. Due to their successes, we were able to authorize increases to the shuttle program, although the Congress did not fully fund the program at the administration's request. Despite this massive advance, however, critics continued to maintain that the space program was too costly, and supporters worked as best we could to clear up this misconception, such as citing studies conducted in the early 1970's which indicated that the program has brought $7 to $15 for each dollar spent. Commercial satellite launches had contributed to this return. NASA had also developed technology for the aircraft industry and the Landsat system, used to explore natural resources. Notably, through our work in the committee that year, we also secured authorizations for NASA's missions to Jupiter and to Halley's Comet. Both of these NASA missions ultimately proved to be tremendously successful. In 1982, we were finally able to include funds for a fifth space shuttle in the NASA authorization. This authorization represented an overall increase, and it included money for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Landsat satellite scanning, something we had been fighting to get for a long time. But that year, for the first time, the military's space budget grew beyond NASA's. While I have long supported military initiatives in space, this was seen by some of us as a threat to NASA's independent, civilian status. Although there is a purpose to certain military missions in space, to usurp NASA's role is contrary to the U.S. mission in space as it was conceived. In the years to come, especially after the Challenger disaster, this threat would continue. In 1983, the construction and deployment of a permanent, manned space station was again urged. A permanent presence in space is the next logical step in human advancement, and research in space has certain advantages not to be found on Earth. The microgravity atmosphere of space allows numerous scientific activities to occur. The growth of crystals and the electrophoresis process can take place far better in space than in the gravity atmosphere of Earth. Several kinds of metals will combine only under the conditions found in space. Medical research has also had many successes in space. Dr. Charles Bugg, Dr. Larry DeLucas, and other scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham were conducting significant experiments in crystallography, but knew nothing about the crystallography activities at Marshall Space Flight Center until I got them together. Since then, they have developed a renowned partnership that will likely lead to treatments and cures for many diseases. My strength on the subcommittee increased that year when I became its ranking member, and we crafted an authorization bill which provided money for space station design at Marshall. It also increased the funding to NASA generally. The bill provided more money than the President requested for Marshall's space telescope, its materials processing, teleoperator maneuvering system, and its space plasma lab programs. Finally, the bill also authorized the construction of a fifth space shuttle, which Reagan had not requested. Of course, this authorization bill was a particularly good one for the future of Marshall Center, but it also helped to bring about a more balanced NASA program. Earlier in the year, I contacted the President to oppose the sale of the Nation's weather and land satellite system and to oppose commercialization of the National Weather Service because of my concern that such a transfer might hinder the system's efficiency. People in many parts of the country relied on the system for early warning in the case of tornados and other severe storms; farmers relied on the information to determine their crops, and the scientific community depended largely on the information. Under the proposal, the transfer seemed likely to be a single company. Since that company would require, as a condition of the sale, a noncompetitive, guaranteed Government contract for many years for the information derived from the satellites, the Government would be establishing a monopoly and creating disincentives for commercialization. The committee was able to secure provisions in the authorization bill to prevent the sale of NASA land and weather satellites, unless the sale were specifically approved by another law. Some of us also opposed the cuts to the National Weather Service recommended by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Specifically, the NOAA had suggested reducing the number of weather stations to one-tenth their existing number. Specialized forecasts would also be eliminated. But the projected savings were minimal; the cost to create a centralized station would outweigh the savings over many years. There was another project undertaken that year, which applied peripherally to the space program. This was the University Research Capacity Restoration Act which Senator Danforth and I introduced to bring universities and industries together in the creation of research parks. We introduced the bill after holding two hearings in Birmingham on the measure. University research is among the most valuable in the country, yet lack of funding has limited it to obsolete equipment. With this bill, we hoped to use the Government as a catalyst to create research parks that combine industry and university resources. We hoped that we might thereby increase the quality of research at such institutions as the University of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB], the University of South Alabama in Mobile, Auburn, Tuskegee, and Alabama A&M. Metallurgy and space-based materials processing were among the chief projects we had in mind. In 1984, the President supported the development of a permanent space station in his State of the Union Address. I was absolutely delighted that he gave the station such strong support; without his help, this project might have died early on. Energized by the President's support, I visited the Marshall Center in Huntsville, which would handle most of the materials processing for NASA's station numerous times, and each time was greatly encouraged. My committee was able to endure that the NASA authorization included funds for research and development of the manned space station. This authorization also created a National Commission on Space, a Mars mission, and a satellite to study the Earth's upper atmosphere. However, many of us were disappointed that the Congress approved the sale of Landsat satellites. Other provisions of the authorization included language to create a National Commission on Space to establish a plan for the civilian space program. There was some concern over the Defense Department's intrusion on the space program, so we limited its membership on the board to a single nonvoting seat. The purpose of the commission was to study long- range goals and schedules for the program. The commercialization of space also became a major initiative in these years. In 1984, Congress passed a law to encourage commercial space launches. It required licensing, to be provided by the Department of Transportation, and we set about to consider further ways of expanding private launches. My bill to improve university research, the University Research Capacity Restoration Act, became law in 1984. The new law was designed to increase support for the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense, Energy, and Agriculture Departments by combining university and private industrial research efforts. In 1985, when the Commerce Committee passed its NASA authorization, NASA's budget suffered cuts, but under this bill, Marshall Space Flight Center was not affected. It included strong support for four major Marshall programs: the space station, the materials processing program, the orbital maneuvering vehicle [OMV], and the aeronautical research and technology program. Specifically, the bill funded the space station with a specific requirement that it embrace only peaceful ends. The committee had originally considered a lower level for the space station than the $200 million included in the bill, but we were able to bring that figure up. I worked especially hard to see that Marshall got a sizable portion of the space station work. Marshall was then designated to do 40 percent of the work, the most of any center. Robert Hager, project manager of Boeing, and I developed a close working relationship that proved very effective over the years. This bill also fully funded the materials processing program at Marshall, a program with which several universities in my State were intimately involved. As a result of experiments conducted on the shuttle by McDonnell Douglas and Johnson and Johnson, we were hopeful that some major medical breakthroughs would materialize as a result of NASA-private sector materials processing research. At one point, the OMV was deleted from the bill, but we were successful in persuading the committee to go forward with the development of this vehicle. Marshall's other chief project, the aeronautical research and technology program, also came out well. Again, this type of initiative was among NASA's chief money-making sources. Further, the authorization bill provided for the delivery of the fourth shuttle--Atlantis--but Congress did not fund the fifth. We also authorized the Galileo mission to Jupiter, the Ulysses mission to the Sun, and the Hubble telescope, which has proved itself a tremendous success despite setbacks here and there. My bill to remove tax code barriers to the commercialization of space was introduced that year along with the sponsorship of the subcommittee's chairman, Senator Gorton. The bill would have extended incentives for investment and research and development, and accelerated depreciation schedules. Many U.S. laws were written before the commercial uses of space were ever envisioned, but commercialization of space could be improved with the impetus of Government cooperation. To this end, we have maintained contact with officials from the Auburn University School of Engineering concerning corporations who might be interested in space-based materials processing. We have an opportunity to combine the expertise of Marshall Space Flight Center with university experts and transfer this potential to the private sector. This idea is one way to help make this possible and hopefully it will some day be enacted. I also cosponsored a concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress that the Nation must improve university research, restating the ideas behind the University Research Capacity Restoration Act which had my cosponsorship in 1983. The 1983 bill increased support for the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense, Energy, and Agriculture Departments. This resolution did not fund these entities, but it restated the congressional commitment to do so. We depend on our preeminence in science to enable us to advance technology and maintain our economic and national security. On January 28, 1986, the Challenger disaster brought a whole host of problems to the space program and to those of us who supported it. The public was horrified, and the military began to increase its intervention in space. Spacelab, a program to add modules to the space shuttle for experiments in orbit, died, and the space station suffered cuts; the Hubble telescope was also delayed until 1988. The Defense Department began building its own launch vehicles for satellites, and the military's space budget grew to two-thirds the total U.S. space budget. Further, President Reagan pocket-vetoed the NASA authorization which included money for the replacement of the Challenger shuttle, chiefly because of provisions creating a National Aeronautics and Space Council to advise the President on space and military issues. However, the Congress did appropriate money for the new shuttle in the omnibus appropriations bill. Morale was at a terribly low level at Marshall Space Flight Center. Their spirit had been devastated by the Challenger explosion. I came out publicly at critical times praising the excellent work that had occurred at Marshall over the years and pointed out that while the explosion was horrible, the fault could be placed at many doors. Hopefully, my remarks boosted morale at Marshall. We worked behind the scenes to get Senator Robert Dole to visit Marshall and speak words of encouragement and support for the Huntsville-based space flight center. His words helped restore the morale and reputation of Marshall. At the end of 1986, then-NASA Administrator Fletcher announced that work assignments on the space station had been finalized, and Marshall Space Flight Center was to maintain roughly 40 percent of the space station design and construction. It would also have responsibility for the living and working quarters of the spacecraft. The Marshall Center would provide technical direction for the propulsion system, conduct the adaptation of the planned international module, and develop and construct the environmental and pressure systems of the station, among other things. That year, I contacted President Reagan and Energy Secretary Herrington to urge construction of the superconducting supercollider in Alabama. Researchers at UAH had developed a compound that loses all resistance to electricity at a higher temperature than had been previously possible. With the expertise demonstrated by this and other breakthroughs in this scientific area and the outstanding support provided by the University of Alabama at Huntsville and similar outstanding research at Auburn University, the State of Alabama has shown that it is a logical location for projects like the supercollider. Unfortunately, Alabama was not chosen, and the project ultimately was discontinued. In 1987, I had to relinquish my seat on the science subcommittee in order to stay on the Agriculture Committee. Given the importance of the space program to my constituents, it was a great sacrifice, but farming was also so important to Alabama and therefore felt it wise to remain on that committee. In any case, I did my best to stay as involved with space issues as possible. In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion, I testified before the subcommittee to oppose Air Force administration of the proposed heavy lift launch vehicle. The Defense Department had requested a supplemental appropriation of $250 million for the project. Assigning the project to the Air Force with only minimal NASA input would have been a backward way to approach the development of this vehicle. All the more so since the Air Force planned to start anew, without incorporating any of the lessons of the shuttle. NASA would benefit greatly from the vehicle's use, and its greater capacity would make up for lost time in the shuttle program in the deployment of the space station and other projects. I successfully urged the inclusion of language in the supplemental appropriations bill to ensure that NASA played a more significant part in the development of the heavy launch vehicle. Marshall Space Center's expertise in propulsion and other aspects of design could serve as an excellent resource in the development of a heavy lift rocketship. And such a vehicle might one day facilitate a trip to Mars--and beyond. Notably, disputes over military use of the space station made its passage difficult that year. Congress ultimately allowed some military research. And Alabama came out well through the debate. At the end of the year, NASA awarded Boeing, with facilities in the State, the contract to perform Marshall Space Flight Center's work on the station. The project had my full support, since, among other things, it would bring over 6,000 jobs to Alabama. It was a significant leap forward for the space program, and it only solidified my efforts to ensure that the space station received primary consideration. Another boon for Alabama came that year when NASA selected Auburn University as host to its Center for the Commercial Development of Space Power. The new center would research the generation, storage, conditioning and distribution of electrical power in space. This was the kind of project desperately needed in my State. This center, and projects like it, could become the incubator for a new industry on the cutting edge of space technology. Until now the power requirements of our space ventures have been low, but future space projects will make much higher power demands. With these types of initiatives, we will begin the development of a cadre of engineers and physicists who will provide the crucial talent pool needed for the space power program for years to come. Hopefully, much of this work will be done in Alabama. Meanwhile, my efforts to bring the supercollider to my State continued, especially through an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill to decide location of the supercollider solely on technical merit. The Energy Department had just announced that it would consider donations of money and land. The Senate approved this amendment, but of course, it still did not work out as hoped. In 1988, during the Presidential campaign, some of NASA's Democratic supporters were disappointed that our party's candidate did not show any particular support for the space program, nor the space station. I talked several times with Governor Dukakis asking for a revised stand on the issue. At a Huntsville campaign stop, he recited his full support for the space program and space station. We were able in Congress to pass funding at the full level of President Reagan's request. That same year, I became a strong supporter of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor project, which came about after the failings of the shuttle boosters and their O-rings became known, and talked to each of the Members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation asking for their full support of this ASRM Project for NASA and to support the appropriation process in Congress. Although there had been partisanship and divisiveness concerning the location of the rocket plant, the Alabama Congressional Delegation needed to pull together as a team and present a solid and united effort for this project and Alabama jobs. In 1989, we protested the budget resolution's funding level for the space station. Knowing it would be a very tough budget year for the space station, we enlisted the support of Senators Sasser and Domenici of the Budget Committee. But when the Senate passed its VA-HUD appropriations for fiscal year 1990, the low funding level for NASA was criticized by me and others. While the bill provided for a 15-percent increase for the space program, that was only the bare minimum and it fell short of what was needed to maintain world leadership in space research, technology, and exploration. Most notably, the space station was funded at $200 million less than NASA's request. While fighting hard for full funding for the space station, I was nonetheless hopeful that the funding level would provide enough for the program to move forward without any serious program modifications, rescoping, or schedule delays. During a speech I delivered on the Senate floor on the 20th anniversary of the Moon landing, my support for the station was again emphasized. We cannot just leave our advances at that. We need to return to the Moon and travel to Mars. The President agreed that the space station was the first step to these ends, and a space summit with Members of Congress was suggested. After much debate on the advanced solid rocket motor plant, we finally secured funding through the conference through use of an unusual procedural tactic. The House had not included funding, but we made sure the Senate included money so that there could be an increase during conference. Congressmen Whitten and Bevill were extremely helpful in this effort. Although some questioned this strategy, we adhered to the rules completely. This bargaining chip worked, and we pushed the funding through successfully. In 1989, the benefits of the Space Grant College and Fellowship Act were realized in my home State. Under its provisions, NASA selected several Alabama Universities to comprise a consortium for the new National Space Grant College and Fellowship program; these schools included UAH, UAB, Alabama A&M, the University of Alabama, and Auburn. As a side note, NASA selected two Alabama women to fly on shuttle missions that year. These women were Mae C. Jemison, M.D. and N. Jan Davis, Ph.D. Dr. Jemison was the first African American woman selected for space flight. Without question, Alabama played an important role in the development and implementation of the space shuttle program. I took some pride in knowing that two people from my home State could take advantage of those efforts and experience the accomplishments of their fellow Alabamians first-hand. In 1990, NASA suffered cuts after the Hubble telescope debacle, and it saw the death of National Space Council's long-term proposals for lunar and Mars missions. The problems of the telescope had brought very hard times on the agency, and the Congress needed to combat an increasing negativity in the press and among the public. To work out these problems, the President held the space summit suggested the year before at the White House. It brought together the President, the Vice President, NASA officials, and other Members of Congress, including myself. Elected officials must continue to hold these kinds of summits in the future, because talks regarding the space station need to be centralized and should focus on the goals of acquiring and maintaining full funding and placing the space station in orbit. During that same year, the Augustine Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program issued its report. I was quite pleased with its recommendations, including its advocacy of a heavy lift launch vehicle. At the time, the Congress and the committee were still waiting for a redesign of the space station, which had been dubbed ``Freedom.'' The HLLV seemed like it might be a good device for deployment of the station. By that time, we had won the battle for the ASRM plant, which was to be located at Yellow Creek in Michigan, just across the border from Alabama. And that year, the Marshall Center awarded a $550 million contract to Lockheed for the design and construction of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor. Lockheed arranged to subcontract the work to RUST International of Birmingham. It was going to be a great boon to Alabama as well as the space program; in the following years, we did our best to continue this project. In 1991, President Bush's fiscal 1992 budget request for NASA received my support. It was a 13-percent overall increase to fund the space station, NASA's share of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle program, and to increase space science research. The budget allowed the propulsion element for the space shuttle program at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville to continue without interruption. And completion of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor plant in Yellow Creek was also included. But, of course, the space station met opposition again. To push the project, I met with the Vice President, administration officials, and other Members of Congress to discuss the future of the space station after its redesign, and we all came out of this meeting with a feeling that we were going to join forces. Vice President Quayle assured us that the President had assigned a high priority to the station. There was an attempt to cut the program in the Senate, but it was opposed on the floor. The Senate voted to keep the funding in the bill. The station's toughest battle that year was in the House of Representatives. Congressmen Bud Cramer and Tom Bevill did great work in restoring funding after the House appropriations subcommittee had cut funding for the program from its bill. Together, we sought to return NASA to a reasonable and balanced profile of programs and to make sure that America did not abandon the 100,000 scientists, engineers, and support staff associated with NASA and its contractors who work on the development of the space station programs. We also sought to save the more than 3,000 jobs in Huntsville. We protected other local jobs as well. The ASRM plant received full funding. And other programs which were funded were the Marshall Center's Advanced X ray Astrophysics Facility, and the National Launch System/Space Transportation Main Engine program. The Earth Observing Systems program also faired well. In October, the President signed a bill to facilitate the construction of Space Station Freedom. Soon afterward, there was a meeting with a group of astronauts to discuss the station's future and talked with the astronauts about Mission to Planet Earth, a program to study the Earth's atmosphere with satellites. As the whole debate on funding went on, I spoke about how much Alabama's economy had grown since the space program began there in the 1950's. Its role in the State's future was crucial. The growth began with the Army's development of the Redstone and Jupiter missile systems in response to Sputnik, and continued when Milton Cummings and Joe Moquin established the Cummings Research Park. Last, the Army Missile Command, the Redstone Arsenal, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Strategic Defense Command had great potential to continue the expansion. In 1992, another amendment to eliminate the space station came before the Senate. The Senators who supported this amendment had deliberately inflated the cost of the station, and they perpetuated the myths of the station's extravagance. Again, the Senate failed to approve the amendment. That year, the Senate also approved a resolution to place two full- scale models of the space station at the Capitol from June 2 through 4, 1992. The fight to fund the space station continued to be impassioned each year. If my colleagues had an opportunity to see first-hand the incredible potential the space station offers, they would understand how important continued funding is to the program. The NASA exhibit included two modules, the habitation and laboratory units, each housed in a tractor-trailer. I toured the exhibit myself with NASA Administrator Goldin and a visiting boy scout troop from Alabama. I used a floor speech commemorating the quincentenary of Columbus' voyage to the Americas to again illustrate the importance of the Space Program. When hearing some of my colleagues rail against the space station and other projects designed to propel us into the future, one cannot help but wonder what they would have said had they been around in 1492. Some of the most important human advances, like Columbus' voyage and many breakthroughs in medicine, had been accidental. We may not always know exactly what is out there, but we know we must continue to explore in order to discover. Because of believing this so strongly, I met with the crew of Endeavor to discuss the future of the Space Program. Among these astronauts was Kathryn Thornton of Alabama. Another proposal which was short-sighted was the President's decision to eliminate the advanced solid rocket motor plant from his budget request. Its supporters could not understand the rationale behind cancellation, since this system would have been much more reliable than previous boosters. In a letter to Senator Mikulski, the chair of the appropriations subcommittee, I asserted that it would cost more to cancel the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Program than to complete it. That fact, combined with its increased safety and efficiency, certainly justified the ASRM in my own mind, and, fortunately, she agreed. But this was not enough. We had to use the same strategy we used in 1989. The House had voted to kill the ASRM plant at the request of the Director of OMB. So, I spent an entire day convincing the Senate Appropriations Committee to include some funding to the program. Representative Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, chairman of the House committee, used this as a starting point to provide full funding in the conference. We also convinced Al Gore to voice support for the ASRM in speeches as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. The final appropriations bill, which went to the President, included a much higher level of funding than appeared in the first Senate appropriations bill for ASRM, $2.1 billion for the space station, and $167 million for Marshall's AXAF Program, which was also in danger of elimination entirely. In 1992, my bill to endorse the U.S. Space Camp, the U.S. Space Academy, and Aviation Challenge programs was introduced. Our goal in Congress must be to support educational programs and to tear down any barriers that would prevent government agencies from working in conjunction with private enterprise dedicated to teaching our youth. Shortly after taking the oath of office as President, Bill Clinton began a program of downsizing the Government. The enemies of NASA went to work at OMB, and in the original recommendations from OMB, the space station was to be canceled. Many of the enemies of the space station in Congress were urging President Clinton to cancel the space station. Congress recessed around the holiday celebrations of the birthdays of Presidents Washington and Lincoln in February 1993. I had scheduled a return to Alabama to visit numerous places in the State with a series of town meetings. Upon learning that President Clinton was seriously considering canceling the space station, my entire recess schedule was put on hold in order to stay in Washington to do everything possible to see that the space station survived in the President's budget. We worked with representatives of Boeing, McDonell Douglas, and others involved to stop the cancellation. For more than a week, we rallied forces to support the space station. On several occasions, I personally discussed the merits of the program with our President and Vice President. We got Texas Governor Ann Richards to become actively involved in our efforts. There were numerous people working night and day to do everything they could to save the space station, and I hesitate to list all of them because there were so many that might be left out. But, Chris Hansen of Boeing and Amy Bondurant, an attorney representing McDonnell Douglas, were extremely helpful in this effort. Jyles Machen, our loan from Marshall, served as a congressional fellow in my office for 2 years, and his expertise was invaluable to me on the space station and to all issues and projects relating to NASA. Vice President Albert Gore had always been a supporter of the Space Program, and he was convinced to go all out to preserve it. Greg Simon, a highly intelligent and knowledgeable member of Vice President Gore's staff, was especially helpful in this battle. During this time, we kept in constant contact with the officials at Marshall Space Flight Center as well. The team that worked to save the station at that time all cooperated and performed exceptional work. When the President's budget was finally submitted, he called for the full funding that NASA requested for the space station. In 1993, the ASRM program died after the House had voted it down for the fifth time, even though the new Vice President and other officials were strong supporters. The House votes during 1993 were so overwhelmingly negative that it became clear that the best to be hoped for was a reassignment to keep Yellow Creek employed in some other activity. My chief concern by this point was saving Alabama jobs. The plant was nearly completed, and it had several possible uses, so the NASA administrator came to my office to discuss its future. Later that year, NASA and the Thiokol Corporation announced that company would transfer its rocket nozzle section from Utah to Yellow Creek. Eight hundred people would start work there. The transfer made a lot of sense, since Marshall would be the chief buyer, and of course we wanted to see the jobs there. But there were other disappointments that year, including, most notably, the fact that Marshall was not chosen to be the lead center for the space station program. However, Boeing, also located in northern Alabama, would serve as a major contractor. Of course, Marshall would have been an excellent choice to host the project, especially because of the quality work the management and employees there had done on the program. They had done it without any of the large cost overruns that plagued other centers working on the space station project. But in our Yellow Creek meeting with the NASA administrator, he assured Congressman Cramer and me that any rumors Marshall would be close were ``poppycock,'' and his assurances seemed pretty solid. The final appropriations bill included more than $2.1 billion for the space station. This funding level included vital elements such as the payload utilization operations conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center. And NASA had selected the Marshall Center to build the Space Station Furnace Facility, a project which would employ 160 people. That year's appropriations bill had other advantages for Alabama, too. It included millions for the Centers for the Commercial Development of Space. These centers were comprised of a consortium of universities, including UAB, UAH, and Auburn. NASA had recently conducted a peer review of these centers and scored Alabama's three centers very well. By the recommendations of this same report, 6 of the 17 centers were scheduled for closure, but not ours. In 1994, the dramatic and successful repair of the Hubble Telescope helped NASA to restore some of its own credibility with the public. Another tremendous benefit was the report issued by the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, an independent group of academic, scientific, and business leaders, headed by MIT President Charles Vest. This committee had reversed its initial, negative view on the space station printed in 1993. This time, Chairman Vest clearly stated that the program had progressed well beyond his expectations. It was not an endorsement to be taken lightly and it further emphasized the need for budgetary stability and a firm national commitment for the International Space Station. However, NASA still had its vocal opponents. For instance, CBO published a report stating that NASA could save half of its money by halving its workload. We were able to point out many errors in the report. This sort of haphazard approach was reflected in the budget allocation handed to the VA-HUD subcommittee, which cut $700 million from NASA's budget. I was very concerned by the proposed cuts, and began working to ensure that the space station and other programs were protected. 1994 saw yet another Senate amendment to cut the space station. By that time, the program had already been assigned a district management structure with clear lines of responsibility and authority. One center had been designated as a host center to facilitate program administration, and one contractor was selected as the prime, with all others working as subs. Transition to the previous year's redesign and this new management structure was complete. The new management structure included a concept widely embraced within the private sector, a tenet of total quality management known as the integrated product team. These teams are a flexible management tool designed to bring together experts from several fields to work individual issues, solve problems, improve communications, and speed decision making. Essential design and review stages were almost completed. Compared to the Freedom design, the International Space Station had nearly twice the power, almost double the pressurized volume, and twice the number of laboratory modules. The station was designed to orbit at a higher inclination, broadening the band of the Earth's surface and atmosphere visible to the station. The crew size has been increased from 4 to 6 fulltime crew members. The amount of extra-vehicular activity, or ``spacewalks'' required to construct the station has been drastically reduced, thereby reducing program risk. Furthermore, the international partners in the project had completed their essential design and review stages. It made no sense to cut the program, and the Senate knew it. In the subsequent vote, 64 members voted for the space station, a remarkable victory. We did a not of preparatory work for the vote and all of our efforts paid off and everything turned out well. Those of us who were proponents of the space station contacted every Senator numerous times in advance of the vote. I was pleased to serve as chairman of the vote round-up group as on several occasions before and since. We tried to get as many votes as possible so we could put this continual fight for space station funding behind us. Our position was greatly strengthened by the House of Representatives, which also gave a strong show of support for the space station that year. Senators Milkulski and Gramm of the Appropriations Committee did outstanding work on the NASA budget, which reflected remarkable support for the Space Station and the space science programs. It increased NASA's funding over the President's request, and fully funded the space station. That year, the Senate also passed an amendment to appropriate $40 million for the continuation of the commercial mid-deck augmentation module for the space shuttle--widely known as ``Space Hab.'' The amendment became part of the emergency supplement bill to aid victims of the earthquake. The primary contractor for the project was McDonnell Douglas, headquartered in Huntsville, which would employ 150 people to finish the quasi commercial venture. The Space Hab program has been in serious danger due to budget cuts, but the appropriation allow it to continue. It was a crucial project in the commercialization of space. We also continued our efforts to maintain Yellow Creek that year, pursuing the rocket-nozzle factory at the plant and other options. In a meeting with Navy Secretary Dalton, I proposed conversion of NASA's Yellow Creek facility into a site for Navy demilitarization of surplus strategic and tactical rocket motors. NASA's Advanced Rocket Motor Director had given me the idea in another meeting. The Navy would receive a flexible facility to enable the sound disposal of excess rocket motors; the transfer would create a means to investigate energy production and reusable chemicals, and jobs would be saved. Last year, there were misguided efforts to cut the NASA budget significantly. The Republicans advocated huge cuts, and the President and NASA Administrator claimed they had to propose cuts, too. The Executive Branch told me that some of the funding reductions would occur after the construction of the space station was completed. Streamlining the shuttle program was another cost-savings plan. In a meeting in May, the NASA Administrator announced that both the Senate and the House versions of the Republican budget proposals would cause severe cuts to the agency's personnel. To pay for the tax cut contained in the House of Representatives budget plan, he told me NASA would be forced to cut 45,000 civil service and contractor jobs at NASA by the year 2000. The House proposal was worse, and it required large cuts by this year. Of course, the President vetoed this budget, but the agency is still in trouble. Most disturbing, however, was the House Republicans' announcement that they would close Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center by 1998 along with other NASA facilities in Maryland and Virginia. In a meeting with NASA Administrator Goldin, he assured me he would fight to maintain all three center the House had targeted: Marshall, Goddard, and Langley. We had already done a lot of work in the Senate, and Senator Shelby and I had contacted key leaders in the Senate and received their commitments to keep Marshall and the other centers open. In September 1996, we fought against yet another Senate amendment to cut funding for the space station. Tens of thousands of pounds of equipment had already been constructed, and the shuttle had flown its first station related mission the year before. Although the Senate voted the amendment down, it is unfortunate that the biggest challenge the station program faces appears to be the Congress of the United States, specifically a small handful of members who continue to offer legislation aimed at terminating the station program. Since the inception of the program, votes have been held over 18 times on the station. We must continue to reject these attempts and continue our support of the Space Station program. We owe this to the future of the citizens of the United States and to all the people of Earth. Unfortuantely, the Premiere Nozzle Center at Yellow Creek came to an end last year. Mississippi state officials seem to have made a deal with NASA to gain title to the property. The Yellow Creek saga began when TVA terminated a 30-percent-complete nuclear reactor. Then came the rash cancellation of the ASRM plant, which was designed to prevent future space shuttle disasters like the Challenger incident in 1986. Last, we were faced with the sell-out of the nozzle center, a project which first was announced just 18 months beforehand. In reviewing its history, it is hard to dismiss the theory that the use of Yellow Creek as a site for ASRM and as a Nozzle Center was being sabotaged from the beginning after the Revised Solid Rocket Motor was completed. Given its history, hopefully something productive can occur at Yellow Creek; otherwise it will stand as a monument to Government ineptitude an incompetence, as well as a destructive conspiracy. In my last year as a Senator, NASA and the space station have, thankfully, enjoyed a banner year. Congress has approved a NASA budget of $14.37 billion, which includes $2.1 billion for the International Space Station. Space Lab received $102.3 million, which is 10 million over the original request. In April, NASA safely concluded the second longest shuttle mission. The space station was reconfigured within congressional budget limits and considerable improvements were made in management, engineering and budgeting the program. These changes led to a resounding endorsement from the Vest Committee. It is rewarding to those of use who have worked long and hard in support of this important international scientific collaboration that the groundswell of public and congressional support is growing stronger. Credit for this success belongs to the team of personnel-- scientists, engineers, contractors, universities and government agencies--who have worked tirelessly to make this program a viable path to the future.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, over the years, we have participated in many efforts to assist the people of Alabama and the Nation in the area of health care, particularly in insuring adequate funding for biomedical research programs. The various budget battles to ensure that cancer research is maintained at the highest effective level became an annual effort during my tenure as a U.S. Senator. During the mid-1980's, it became necessary for me to author several amendments to various spending bills in order for important cancer research to be adequately conducted. Cancer is a disease that knows no class, income levels, lifestyle, race, or sex. It can strike anyone at any time, as evidenced by studies estimating that almost 1 million Americans develop this deadly disease annually. In Alabama, important research through grants from the National Institutes of Health [NIH] is being carried on at 13 universities, hospitals, and research institutes. Research particularly crucial to our efforts to conquer cancer is being done at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, the Southern Research Institute in Birmingham, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. These institutions are well known for their important contributions to cancer research. The cancer research community throughout America, and the world, knows that one of the true flagships of cancer research is the Cancer Core Center at UAB, which has been listed among the three top U.S. centers for cancer research. It is one of the first centers recognized by the National Cancer Institute, and has experienced remarkable growth. In addition, it has developed some of the most sophisticated resources for basic science and clinical care in the southeast, and it is now a regional, national, and international resource for patient care and research. Through the National Institutes of Health, we have been successful in getting funds to establish grants for sickle cell centers at UAB, and the University of South Alabama. Sickle cells, or sickle cell anemia, is predominately an inherited, chronic blood disease where the red blood cells become crescent shaped and function abnormally. This is how it got its name. The pains from this disease are due to aggregations of sickle cells causing a temporary blockage of the small blood vessels. These cells are subject to early destruction in the circulation, causing a chronic anemia. Although it occurs primarily in people of African heritage, with one out of 400 African Americans affected, it also occurs in persons from Mediterranean and other countries. A clinical alert issued by health care professionals in January 1995 by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institutes announced an effective treatment of an anticancer drug which showed a remarkable reduction with regard to the complications of this disease. In addition, other biomedical research is being conducted at Alabama A&M University, and Tuskegee University Veterinary Medicine program. Both these historical black universities have received funds for biomedical, as well as agriculture research. This includes my sponsorship of the amendment to the farm bill, providing $50 million to legislation involving the 1890 land grant colleges, where Alabama A&M University and Tuskegee University were the top beneficiaries. In the mid-1980's, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB] made a major contribution to our Nation's cancer research efforts by managing a program for protein crystal growth experiments on the space shuttle. For years, UAB has been a world leader in this type of research, with their knowledge having been crucial in the development of new drugs to treat critical illnesses. I feel considerable pride that I changed a working relationship between UAB and Marshall Space Flight Center. The restrictions on gravity, however, created difficulties in growing protein crystals large enough for detailed study. In space, where there is no gravity, it was discovered that these crystals can be grown many times larger than on Earth, thus giving researchers samples large enough for accurate atomic characterization. During my years in the Senate, I have been an ardent believer of our space program. I feel this contribution by Marshall Space Flight Center, and UAB is indicative of the benefits society can reap from a successful space program. Likewise, I have helped in restoring funds for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [NHLBI] of the National Institutes of Health. Discussions have been held with Dr. Claude Lenfant, Director of NHLBI, on many occasions regarding the research at UAB in the area of cardiology, led by Dr. Gerald Pohost. Both Dr. Lenfant and I have had the distinction of testifying before this Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and Related Agencies of the Senate Appropriations Committee, regarding this research. At UAB, the cardiology division is one of the leaders in the Nation in research and teaching in clinical diagnosis and treatment. With areas of special expertise in the treatment of sudden death, interventional cardiology, cardiac transplants, and magnetic resonance imaging, the division continues to set the course for the future in basic and clinical research, and for the treatment of all forms of cardiovascular disease. Over the years, I have strongly supported appropriations for the National Institutes of Health. My testimony before the subcommittee focused primarily on the critical importance of funding for the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Research Resources [NCRR], and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In my opinion, NCRR never received the attention it deserved. I was convinced that the biomedical research technology program at the University of Alabama's center was outstanding. It involves a unique, high-field magnetic resource image. This device has the potential to study the biomedical basis of human diseases without biopsy. These magnetic resonance mehtods have the capacity to determine tissue viability, as well as to examine biochemical and metabolic processes underlying heart disease, transplantation, rejection, and other common cardiac maladies. On several occasions, I visited the National Institutes of Health to discuss their programs and goals. I was most impressed with the competency and quality of their operations. NIH is responsible for placing the United States in a position of preeminence in biomedical research and biotechnology. During my tenure in the Senate, it was determined that we could not let this prime example of excellence deteriorate, especially when so many advances are being realized. Supporting the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has been one of my pet priorities. It provides leadership for our national programs dealing with diseases of the heart, blood vessels, blood and lungs, and the use and management of blood and blood resources. In 1989, Congress provided $640 million for heart disease research, and by 1994, these estimates had grown to $737 million. These figures are for heart disease research, and I am proud to have been a leader with regard to providing Federal support in this area. For the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, appropriations including grants and direct operations went from $10,725,000 in 1950, to an appropriation of $1.2 billion in 1994. Perhaps because of my own health, I have great faith in the work of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In fact, my own heart problems were solved with many techniques developed under advance research which took place at UAB in Birmingham, and elsewhere in the country. Drs. Pohost and Roubin--my physicians in Birmingham--took excellent care of me, and showed me how much our country can benefit from clinical research supported by the Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In February 1993, when the administration forwarded its budget proposal for 1994, it was $16 million less than the previous year's budget. Immediately, I went to work with a group of my colleagues in the House and Senate to increase the budget of the NHLBI to a more reasonable level of $1.27 billion, which was $75 million more than the administration's request--an increase of $63 million over the 1993 budget. This set the stage for an annual increase. Also, this year, I urged Congress to establish a cardiovascular care consortium center to be headed by Dr. Pohost at UAB. The Conference Report on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations included a $2.5 million for a project which the University Cardiovascular Care Consortium [UCCC] had proposed. It is called a best practices demonstration project, and we were able to convince the Health Care Financing Administration to endorse brief supportive language in the conference agreement to help ensure that this project recevies high priority. Although we were not able to adopt the provisions of the consortium in the appropriations bill, I have joined several Senators in contacting officials of the Health Care Financing Administration, urging the officials to move forward with a best practices demonstration project on congestive heart failure that the Senate Committee on Appropriations referenced in its fiscal year 1997 report. Congestive heart failure is the leading cause of mortality among Medicare beneficiaries. It is also the most costly diagnosis for the Medicare Program. A successful effort to develop and implement improvements in the quality and cost effectiveness of heart failure diagnosis and treatment would improve patient outcomes, thus reducing Medicare expenditures. The most contentious battles in my fight for improving health care and disease prevention for all Americans involved the Medicaid Program. Shortly after I took office in the U.S. Senate, officials of the Alabama Medicaid Agency contacted my office complaining that the Health Care Financing Administration in Washington was requiring the State of Alabama to return $10 million to the Federal Government. Apparently, the State had authorized distribution of durable medical equipment, which at that time was not allowable under the Federal Medicaid regulations. The Medicaid Program is administered at the State level within certain general Federal guidelines. I was advised that the State of Alabama could ill-afford to lose $10 million from its Medicaid budget. Therefore, my office successfully negotiated a settlement in favor of the State of Alabama with HCFA officials involving this dispute of Medicaid funds. As with cancer research, funding for Medicaid was virtually an annual battle. When Congress considered the 1993 omnibus budget reconciliation bill, I urged an amendment which was adopted, thus giving relief to hospitals that treated a high disproportionate share of poor patients. This legislative action resulted in the State of Alabama receiving annually $93 million additional dollars in Medicaid funds. This was because of the transitional amendment to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. During the summer of 1996, after the transitional period had passed, a glitch again appeared in the flow of Federal funds to Alabama, causing Federal officials to withhold about $94 million. I stayed in Washington during a recess period, endeavoring to work out a settlement of the issues between HCFA and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. We were able to negotiate a temporary settlement in this regard. The Alabama Medicaid Agency and my office negotiated with HCFA officials relative to a commitment by Alabama to comply with Federal requirements regarding patient's hospital payments, and to attempt to address HCFA's concerns with its hospital payment system. HCFA released the funds based on the State's commitment. Problems occurred in the Medicaid Program because of the method by which Alabama finances its Medicaid Program through so-called intergovernmental transfers, a method of counting some funds from State and county hospitals as part of its Medicaid share. Alabama now receives about $2.089 billion annually in Medicaid funding. This means that Alabama's contribution should be over $800 million. However, the fact remains that Alabama's general fund has been appropriating only about $140 t0 $150 million each year for Medicaid. This year, two different supplemental appropriations in the amount of $10 million brought it up to a level of $169 million. The difference between this amount and the $800 million match has caused chronic disputes between HCFA and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Being able to avoid putting up Alabama's Medicaid share in real dollars has been a mixed blessing. It has certainly saved Alabama's general fund from going into serious deficit, due to the rapid increase in overall Medicaid expenditures caused in part by additional services mandated by Congress. In turn, this has enabled the State to keep taxes low, and to avoid having to shift funds from other needed services, including education. In September 1996, I was delighted when HCFA agreed to a request by the State's congressional delegation to release $94 million in moneys that had been withheld from the Medicaid Program in Alabama. Sooner or later, Alabama is going to be required to find some additional money to put into Medicaid. Thus, finding a solution to our most recent Medicaid crisis will not be easy, and I do not believe the answer we found will last very long. Accordingly, we will need to start thinking about what we are going to do with this fix expires. Looking to the future, Alabama's Representatives and Senators in Washington must examine all Medicaid reform proposals with great care. Such proposals offer States much greater flexibility in designing their Medicaid programs. This is clearly positive. If we do a good job, we can offer more cost-effective services to Medicaid recipients. But we must remember that the price of this flexibility may be that the Federal Government may at some point stop paying 70 percent of these health care costs. Alabama taxpayers will then have to pick up 100 percent of the additional cost, including, for example, the nursing home bills of our rapidly increasing number of elderly citizens. This is a big price to pay, and we had better be certain what we are doing. In essence, the Federal Government should supply about 70 percent of Alabama's Medicaid funds and the State should supply about $700 million. However, in actuality, the Federal Government is supplying about 92 percent of the Medicaid fund, and the State is supplying about 8 percent. The settlement we just reached would not only release $94 million in 1996, but it would release about $94 million in each of the next 5 years. There is a movement in Congress to block grant Medicaid programs. However, it seems that the Federal Government would not block grant the almost $2.1 billion that it is giving our State. It is likely that the Federal Government would only block grant $1.4 billion, which would represent the 70 to 30 percent ratio. This means the State would have to appropriate $170 million. Therefore, if you add $1.4 billion in Federal shares, and $170 million in State shares, you will reach a total of $1.57 billion. This is $530 million short of what is currently being funded for Alabama's Medicaid. There are no easy answers. There is much work that remains to be done. Additionally, in the area of public health education, I sponsored legislation to establish two health facilities at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to honor two of Alabama's legendary Senators; namely, the John J. Sparkman Center for International Public Health Education, and the Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. With $5 million in appropriations to the Lister Hill Center, and $4 million in funds appropriated to the John J. Sparkman Center, both centers have been instrumental in developing research programs that address the needs in public health in the United States, as well as other developing countries. Initiated in 1980, the John J. Sparkman Center for International Public Health Education [SCIPHE] was provided initial support when Congress authorized funding for the establishment of an endowment at UAB. The endowment assures long-term support SCIPHE programs and activities which should be conducted primarily onsite in developing countries rather than at UAB or other academic institutions. Thus, the primary mandate of SCIPHE is to promote and provide sustainable training strategies for public health professional in developing countries. The Lister Hill Center [LHC] for Health Policy is also a congressionally endowed center, with a university-wide mission to facilitate the conduct of health policy research, in addition to disseminating the findings of that research beyond the usual academic channels. It also fosters research primarily through the work of its scholars in the areas of health care markets and managed care, maternal and child health, management in public health organizations, and clinical health services research. Scholars with national reputations in an area pertinent to health policy are invited monthly to give seminars. These seminar series are free of charge and are open to the UAB community. I was asked by officials at UAB, Auburn Veterinary Medicine School, NIH and the National Association of Bio-Medical Research Association to pass legislation making it a Federal crime to damage or destroy medical research centers. One of the awards I am most proud of is the Outstanding Service to Science Award from the National Association of Bio-Medical Research for passing such legislation as well as other contributions I made to biomedical research. I am proud to have played a small role in the promotion of health care and medical research during my tenure in the Senate. No one can argue that this type of reform and research are crucial to the future of our Nation and the well-being of our citizens. I am also proud that my home State is playing such an important role in this area. While we cannot ignore the need for improving access to quality health care, we also cannot forget the importance of medical research, health education, and disease prevention.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Kika de la Garza. There is nobody in the U.S. Congress more deserving of a tribute than the distinguished and longtime chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and defender of rural America and family farms. Kika de la Garza began his elected public service with six terms in the Texas House of Representatives and was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964. Kika was immediately appointed to the Agriculture Committee and has served as the committee chairman since 1981. As a matter of fact, Kika was the first Hispanic American to head-up a standing committee of the House of Representatives. Kika de la Garza is very proud of his Hispanic heritage, and with good reason. Kika can trace his ancestry back to one of the ruling families of Spain and to one of the earliest settlers of Texas. Don Martin de Leon and his wife, Dona de la Garza, petitioned the Spanish Governor in San Antonio for the right to establish a permanent settlement in Texas long before Moses Austin had received permission. Kika is also proud of his Alabama ancestry, as he often reminds me that he can trace some of his forebears to Etowah County, AL. During his tenure as committee chairman, Kika de la Garza has successfully guided the passage of three omnibus farm bills. He is also responsible for a major overhaul of the agricultural lending system, Federal crop insurance reform, reorganization of the USDA, and reforms in pesticide laws. Chairman de la Garza has also brought special attention to rural development and the needs of rural families. He has fought tirelessly for rural development programs such as rural waste and water systems. Through this strong commitment and leadership on behalf of rural America, his efforts were recognized with the establishment of an empowerment zone in south Texas, one of only three in rural America. I recall working closely with Kika de la Garza over the years. We have worked many long hours together to restructure the Farm Credit System and provide disaster assistance when our Nation's producers have suffered from drought and other natural disasters. However, what comes to mind when I think of Kika De la Garza is his invaluable leadership in defense of the peanut program. It may come as a surprise to some, but the peanut program is vitally important to Alabama and I have personally fought hard to preserve this program. Had it not been for Chairman de la Garza, though, we would not have been able to maintain this program that is also an integral part of Texas agriculutre. Many were the occasions that I came to Kika and I told him that I needed his help and without fail, we were able to hold off efforts to eliminate the peanut program. For this, I am deeply grateful to Kika. As Kika de la Garza leaves Congress and returns to Texas, we are truly witnessing the end of an era. Kika de la Garza has outlasted Bob Poage, Herman Talmadge and Jamie Whitten to become the dean of American Agriculture. Rural America has had no stronger advocate than Kika de la Garza, he has indeed been the champion of the small farmer. When Kika and his wife, Lucille, return to Texas, they will return home to Mission. Mission, TX, is known for producing famous Texans, among them include Tom Landry and Lloyd Bentsen. However, none have contributed more to improving the lives and living conditions of all Americans. Congress will indeed be a different place next year and it will sorely miss the wisdom and leadership of Kika de la Garza. From the beginning, man has been at work in agriculture. In Genesis Chapter 3, Verse 23, Moses writes, ``Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the Ground from whence he was taken''. Although there are tremendous challenges that lie ahead, the Sun shall rise tomorrow, and we can bear fruit for our neighbors and friends and those who are without nourishment. As we strive to feed a growing population, protect our environment, and keep farmers and ranchers strong, I am confident that with God's guidance, those who rely upon him will succeed. We have all been blessed to have had the wisdom and leadership of Kika de la Garza. As Americans we are all better for his service to this great country. As Kika and his wife, Lucille return home, as Mike and I are returning home, we wish them both the very best for many years to come. It has been my honor to have served with Kika de la Garza.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on the last day the Senate was in session, October 4, I stood on the floor and briefly thanked my staff members for all their hard work over the years. At that time, I had a list of their names, hometowns, and date of joining our staff inserted into the Congressional Record. I also said that later, I would make additional comments about each of those. As I said, it is easy to take staff for granted. Much of what they do is carried out in such a way that we might not be aware always of what they are doing. But they put in long hours just like we do. They are dedicated not only to us, but to the States we serve. My staff has helped thousands of Alabamians and other citizens with problems, questions, projects, and other general concerns. I have been fortunate to have many long-time staff members who have been with me for many years, some since my first year in the Senate. Others have not been here as long, but have still made valuable contributions. Most have come from Alabama or had some connection to the State, such as being an alumnus of a university there, but others have come from the Washington area or other parts of the east coast. I am proud of my staff, both here in Washington and in the four State offices. They have done an outstanding job for the Senate, for the State of Alabama, and for the Nation and I thank all of them and wish them well as they retire or move on to new career opportunities. I would now like to say a few words about each of those who are still serving with us during these final weeks of my term. steve raby Heading up my Washington staff is Steve Raby, my administrative assistant. Over the years, Steve has been a tireless worker and voice for the State of Alabama and the Nation. He has superb judgment and unsurpassable ability to motivate workers under his supervision. He first joined my staff in January 1984 as a legislative assistant focusing on agriculture and rural development policy. In 1987, he became my administrative assistant, responsible for legislative and political matters affecting Alabama. Steve was born in Huntsville, AL, and received his bachelors and masters degrees from Auburn University. I have accused him numerous times of filling my staff with Auburn graduates so he could have more support in the Auburn-Alabama football rivalry. Prior to joining my staff, Steve worked as a research assistant at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta analyzing economic indicators of regional economy. Steve is married to the former Denise Cole. They have two sons--Nathan and Keenan. I predict a great future for him in anything he undertakes, including politics. winston lett As ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, I have faced a myriad of interesting and challenging issues. Since 1990, Winston Lett has served as Democratic chief counsel and staff director of this prestigious subcommittee and has worked with me on multitudes of legislation. Born in Opelika, AL, Winston graduated from Auburn University and received his law degree from the University of Alabama. It is safe to say that Winston is a favorite son of his hometown: The Opelika and Auburn Chambers of Commerce proclaimed ``Winston Lett Day'' in 1989. Aside from this distinction, Winston was assistant attorney general in Alabama from 1973 to 1977 before transferring to Washington as administrative assistant to the late Representative Bill Nichols of Alabama until 1988. In 1989, Winston was administrative assistant to Representative Glen Browder before joining my staff a year later. Winston has been a calm, steady voice amid many turbulent judiciary matters and I deeply appreciate his outstanding work. He is an excellent lawyer and has an exceptional ability to get along with people. denise addison Denise Addison was born here in Washington, the fifth child of Elmer and Louise Meadows. She graduated from Saint Patrick's Academy in 1975 and has been a fixture on Capitol Hill for 21 years now. She has worked for an astounding number of Members of Congress, beginning with Senator John V. Tunney of California. Since then, she has also worked for Congressman Robert N.C. Nix of Pennsylvania; Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois; Senator Robert Kasten of Wisconsin; and Senator Mark Andrews of North Dakota. She came to my office in 1988, and has been an integral part of the success of our correspondence, computer, filing, and office management operations. She married Alvin Addison in 1985, and together they have three children, Alvin, Jr., Dominique, and Jasmine. sonceria ann bishop berry Every office has that one person who knows how to fix, find, and take care of just about anything. In my office, that person is Sonceria Ann Bishop Berry. Ann joined my Tuscumbia office in April 1979 and moved to Washington the following month as a secretary. She eventually served as assistant office manager before being promoted to office manager in 1992. A native of Birmingham, AL, Ann received her bachelors degree from the University of North Alabama. She is married to Reginald A. Berry and they have one daughter, Elizabeth Ruth. Ann was one of my youngest staff members when she arrived in Washington. I have seen her grow up into a fine young woman. I am proud to have her as a member of my staff. She is one of a kind. mary catherine brooks Mary Catherine Brooks, or ``Cappie'' as she is known, joined my staff in March 1989 as assistant to my administrative assistant, Steve Raby. A native of Birmingham, AL, Cappie attended the University of Alabama and the Katherine Gibbs School in Boston, MA. During her years of service on my staff, Cappie has tackled many special projects. One of the most notable was the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast honoring President Bill Clinton. As chairman of the Senate Prayer Breakfast, I was responsible for organizing a guest list of several thousand dignitaries from over 100 different countries. I relied heavily on Cappie, who managed the event masterfully. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore both thanked Cappie personally for her outstanding work. Cappie's next special project is of a more personal nature: Her Spring 1997 wedding to Bill Stiers. She is most attractive as well as efficient. tim brown Tim Brown has been my loyal and dedicated traveling companion over the years. He has been with me to each and every county in Alabama at one time or another. He has served as my State director, heading up all four of my Alabama offices, since 1995. Prior to that, he was the field representative responsible for 23 counties based out of Montgomery. He came to my Montgomery office in 1985 after working on my campaign the previous 2 years. He earned a bachelor of arts degree from Auburn University in 1971 and his law degree from Jones Law School in 1976. From 1972 to 1983, he worked for his family's business--Brown and Sons, Inc., a trucking and textiles company. Tim is from Enterprise, home of the famous boll weevil statue. His father, the late M.N. ``Jug'' Brown was mayor of Enterprise for 18 years. He is married to Cathy, an employee of Alabama Power Co. His political instincts are sharp, and he has been my eyes and ears in Alabama. He has been instrumental to the effectiveness of our State operations and no one could have done a better job of keeping me up-to-speed on local and State issues. beau greenwood Beau Greenwood has been my agriculture legislative assistant since February 1995. As we faced the formidable task of rewriting the farm bill in the 104th Congress, I relied heavily on Beau. He worked with me to ensure that southern agriculture was treated equitably. We faced a tremendous battle with the peanut program, but fortunately were successful in defending this vital program. This long, grueling process came to a successful conclusion thanks in no small part to Beau's efforts. Prior to serving on my staff, he worked for Representative Charlie Rose of North Carolina from 1992 to 1995. A native of Corpus Christi, Beau is the son of Allen Greenwood of Corpus Christi and Sherri Moore Greenwood of Little Rock, AR. Beau attended Texas A&M University and received his undergraduate degree from George Washington University. He studies each issue carefully and is a master of details. joyce d. hackworth Joyce Hackworth has been with me since the beginning of my Senate career, building on her legacy of working with Democratic Senators from Alabama. Born and raised in Montgomery, AL, she attended Troy State University before going to work for Senator John Sparkman in January 1971. In fact, Joyce moved to Birmingham to open Senator Sparkman's first State office. She remained with him until he retired in 1979. I was elected to Senator Sparkman's seat that year and brought Joyce over to my staff. She has been the office manager in my Birmingham office since January 1979, and says she plans to retire along with me. Her retirement date, effective January 2, 1997, will mark 26 continuous years as a U.S. Senate staffer. Eighteen of those years have been spent on my staff handling everything from casework to the wide range of constituent requests that come into a Senate office on a daily basis. I appreciate her excellent work and colorful personality. henderson thad huguley Thad Huguley, who has been with my Washington staff since 1992, hails from Lanett, AL. While a student at the University of Alabama, he served as vice president of the Student Government Association, was inducted into numerous campus leadership and scholastic honor societies, and worked as a part-time field reporter for the CBS affiliate in Tuscaloosa. He began working for me as a legislative correspondent. As a legislative assistant since late 1993, Thad has been responsible for telecommunications, commerce, environmental, banking, housing, transportation, and labor issues. He seems to have delved into virtually every possible issue area at one time or another. He is a jack-of-all-trades who was always able to master complex issues quickly. He has been a tremendous asset to my office and has been instrumental in helping set and accomplish our legislative agenda. He completed his master of arts in American history at American University in May 1996. lea aldridge hurt Lea Hurt has been writing media releases, producing television and radio feeds and juggling reporter queries in my press office since July 1991. Before joining my staff, she was a familiar face on my hometown television station, WOWL-15 NBC, in Florence, AL, where she anchored the evening news. After moving to Annapolis in 1990 to be with her new husband Jay, Lea worked as an assignment editor at Sun World Satellite News until I hired her a year later to be my assistant press secretary. Now, as communications director, Lea handles a wide range of issues. A native of Decatur, AL, Lea is the daughter of Linda and Walter Brooks. She attended Calhoun Community College in Decatur, where she was SGA president, before graduating from the University of North Alabama with a degree in English. Lea and I work together every week to produce my weekly column. I figured recently that we have put out around 280 columns on topics ranging from the balanced budget amendment to constituent services. I have appreciated her hard work, pleasant personality, and dedication. She always presents an attractive appearance. I wish her every future success. brenda jarvis Brenda Jarvis knows Montgomery--everything from the city streets to the State legislature. It is her hometown as well as where she now lives with her husband Jake and two children, Heather and Ricki Marie. Brenda joined my staff as a field representative in 1990, working with constituents, State agencies, the State legislature, local governments and chambers of commerce. Prior to that, she served as a member of Governor George Wallace's staff from 1971 to 1979 as an administrative assistant working with legislation, extraditions, the Department of Corrections, the Board of Pardon and Parole, the Department of Public Safety, court matters as well as appointments to boards, agencies and courts. From 1983 to 1987, Governor Wallace appointed her to be assistant director of the State Commission on Aging responsible for the State administration of the Older Americans Act. With her extensive career background, Brenda has been an invaluable help to me in many matters over the years. I have enjoyed working with her. mary janet johnson Jan Johnson was one of the original ``Howell's Angels'' in my 1978 campaign for U.S. Senate. She and other volunteers worked many long hours for my election and, thanks to these efforts, we were successful. When I took office, Jan joined my staff working out of my Tuscumbia office as a field representative and State aide, continuing her legacy of long hours and hard work. In her 18 years on my Senate staff, Jan has traveled the State of Alabama like few others have. She knows the ``where'' and the ``who'' and can tell you the always-fascinating history that goes with it. Jan was born in Franklin County to Oscar and Nelda Lois Jackson. She has a son, Jacob Johnson, and a daughter, Mary Elizabeth Johnson Cahoon. I have depended on her greatly over the years and have appreciated her hard work. jeanne jones Since September 1982, Jeanne Jones has been a case worker and secretary in my Mobile office. For many years, Jeanne was the right- hand for Bob Morrissette, my dear friend and field representative in Mobile who passed away only recently. The daughter of Mr. and Mrs. James C. Lloyd, Jeanne was born in Birmingham, AL. She graduated from Shades Valley High School and attended Jacksonville State University and the University of South Alabama. Jeanne moved to Juneau to work for the State of Alaska for 2 years before returning to Alabama to live in Mobile in 1971. She has three children: Jeri, Jana and Jill; one son- in-law, Dirk, and two grandchildren, Taylor and Shelby. For 14 years, Jeanne has helped thousands of people in south Alabama with countless issues. I appreciate her dedicated work and tireless efforts on my behalf. betty streeter lanier Betty Lanier has been serving on my staff for more than 10 years now as a secretary and staff assistant. Most recently, she has worked extensively with the legislative director, serving as his right hand in terms of managing his heavy load of casework, correspondence, and legislative schedule. Previously, Betty worked for Illinois Senator Paul Simon and for a short time for Congressman Claude Pepper's House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health and Long-term Care. She also worked for several offices within the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which brought her to Washington. From the small Bullock County town of Midway, AL, Betty is endowed with a variety of talents. She is a member of the Congressional Chorus, and has performed with the group at inaugurations, annual lightings of the Capitol Christmas tree, and Kennedy Center Arts Festivals. In addition, she has taken several Shakespearean acting classes. A post and avid reader, she has done an outstanding job and brought a real cultural and artistic flair to the office. alan leeth Alan Leeth has been a legislative assistant and counsel in my office since December 1995, responsible for banking, budget, tax issues and Indian affairs. In the year that he has been with me, he has helped me develop and plan legislative initiatives, monitor developments within committees and on the Senate floor. Alan is from Opelika, AL, and is the son of Roy and Carol Leeth. He graduated from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and received his law degree from my law school alma mater, the University of Alabama, where he met his wife Tracy. Alan has been a tremendous asset to my staff and I am sure I will continue to hear great things from him in the future. william mansel long, jr. William Mansel Long, Jr. began working in my Washington office in 1979 as a legislative assistant. Since that time, he has moved up the ranks and currently serves as legislative director. Mansel has proven himself to be a close friend, loyal employee, and trusted advisor. I have known him and his family for many years; he is also a native of Tuscumbia. He served in the Army for 2 years, earning a Good Conduct Medal. He received a bachelor of arts degree from Tennessee State University, and has taken graduate courses at Alabama A&M University, District of Columbia Teachers College, The American University, Catholic University, Trinity College, and George Washington University. Before joining my staff, Mansel was a social studies teacher, special education teacher, and a consultant for International Business Services. He has received numerous honors and awards, and received a Doctor of Humane Letters degree from Faulkner University in 1984. ``Dr. Long,'' as the staff affectionately calls him, has been an outstanding public servant and I could not imagine having served in the Senate without his assistance and leadership. judy lovell Judy Lovell has been my correspondence manager since 1990. In those 6 years, she has helped me develop and maintain an office mail management plan to deal with the thousands of letters we receive every week. Judy takes care of the mail in a full circle approach. She directs the incoming mail to the appropriate person and then oversees the final return mailing process, scrutinizing everything from grammar to content. Aside from her outstanding work, Judy is also known for her excellent bean dip, which we have been fortunate enough to frequently sample over the years. Before joining my staff, Judy worked for Senator Howard Cannon of Nevada from 1981 to 1983, and Senator John Danforth of Missouri from 1983 to 1990. She and her husband John live in Bowie, MD, and have four children: John, Tim, Terry, and Tracy; and one grandchild, Katy. kristi mashon Kristi Mashon has taken on the herculean task of archiving documents from my career as a Senator and as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. She has been working with me on this project since June 1995. Kristi previously served as archivist for Senator George Mitchell of Maine and is also currently working for Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. A native of Austin, TX, Kristi is the daughter of Les and Barbara King. She graduated from the University of Texas in 1988 and completed her graduate education at the University of Maryland in 1995. Kristi and her husband Mike have one daughter, Madeleine, who recently celebrated her second birthday. I have appreciated Kristi's thorough work and attention to detail. I am confident that my documents and memorabilia are in good hands. kimberly mcdonald Kim has been with my staff since November 1991. She started out as a legislative correspondent, researching and formulating responses to constituent mail. In 1995, she was promoted to caseworker where she acts as a liaison between constituents and Federal, State or local government agencies. Her areas of responsibility include Aging, Foreign Affairs, Government Affairs, Health, Immigration, Labor, Postal Affairs and Social Security. As you can imagine, with such a wide range of issues, Kim stays busy. She has worked with me to help countless Alabamians who thought they had no where to turn. It was only about a year ago that our staff celebrated Kim's marriage to Curtis F.M. McDonald, our last ``office'' wedding. I have enjoyed working with Kim and am sure that she will continue to achieve great things. tom mcmahon Tom McMahon has been my press secretary since February 1989. As my chief spokesperson, Tom has to be conversant on a wide variety of issues. In this area he has proven himself as a true ``renaissance man,'' able to knowledgeably discuss everything from bankruptcy reform to crop insurance. Tom came to Washington in 1987 as press secretary to the late Representative Bill Nichols of Alabama. Prior to that, he worked in university relations at his alma mater, Auburn University. In fact, Tom leads the ``Auburn gang'' in my office as a former president of the Metro Washington Auburn Club. He graduated from Auburn in 1984 with a degree in communications. Before graduation, he was station manager at Auburn's WEGL-FM radio and worked as an anchor and reporter at WAUD-AM radio, also in Auburn. He and his wife Diane, a native of Scottsboro, AL, now live in the Washington area. I have appreciated the outstanding work Tom has done over the years and am sure we will continue to hear great things from him in the future. jacqueline a. natter Jackie joined my staff as a legislative correspondent in November 1994, after serving an internship at the State Department's Bureau for Political-Military Affairs. While she was studying international relations and English at Georgetown University, from which she graduated in 1994, Jackie completed an internship in my office and worked as a research assistant for the National War College. As a self- described ``military brat,'' her interest in military affairs started at a very young age, and has continued through her academic and professional work. Currently serving as a legislative assistant handling national defense, space, and veterans issues, Jackie also coordinates my military services academy nominations. She is the middle daughter of Rear Admiral Jack and Nancy Natter of Birmingham and is looking forward to returning to Alabama at some point in the future. She has been a valuable addition to my staff and I know she will make tangible contributions to the fields of national defense and foreign policy in the future. barry phelps A native of the Birmingham, AL area, Barry Phelps moved to Washington in 1989 after completing his master of public administration and bachelor of arts degrees at the University of Alabama. He came to work for my office in the fall of 1990 as a legislative correspondent and 1 year later became my speechwriter. Since that time, he has simultaneously handled legislative issues relating to foreign policy, international trade, and general governmental affairs. In addition to being an excellent ``wordsmith,'' Barry has also been instrumental to my work as chairman of the Senate delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, traveling either with me or as my representative to NAA meetings in Berlin, Germany; Copenhagen, Denmark; Oslo, Norway; and Turin, Italy. In the fall of 1993, he began the graduate liberal arts program at Georgetown University, attending classes in the evenings and on weekends. He completed his master of arts degree there in April 1996, concentrating his studies in the area of international affairs. We were not surprised to learn that Barry was ranked first in his graduating class and had the honor of serving as commencement marshall. robert schultz Bob Schultz has been an outstanding recent addition to my staff in Washington. A Pennsylvania native and graduate of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Rob was brought on board earlier this year to handle the important task of compiling and summarizing my 18-year Senate legislative record. He completed a similar project for former Senator Don Riegle of Michigan in 1993 and 1994. Since he has been here, he has compiled my record in certain policy areas, such as defense and foreign policy, agriculture, court reform and judiciary, civil rights, and space exploration and NASA. Rob has done an incredible job under severe time constraints, and we could not have succeeded without him. barbara sherrill I noted in my retirement announcement that Tuscumbia, AL, is the best little town in America to go home to. Barbara Sherrill, a secretary and caseworker in my Tuscumbia office, figured that out years ago. A native of Waukegan, IL, Barbara worked in Washington, DC, for the Air Force at the Pentagon. Her husband, Estes, is a native of Tuscumbia, so in 1971 after he retired as an Air Force pilot, their family moved back to that area. Barbara joined my staff in 1985, working with my chief of staff, the late Bill Gardiner. Her assistance has been invaluable to me as well as to the many constituents who call or drop by the Tuscumbia office seeking help. She has said that her greatest reward is hearing constituents say that the help they received from our office has made a difference in their lives. Barbara has three children--Beth, Martha, and Andy--and three grandchildren--Benjamin, Elizabeth, and Rachel. samantha smith Two positions in a Senate office that are usually considered ``gatekeepers'' to the member are receptionist and personal scheduler. By that definition, Samantha Smith is the ultimate ``gatekeeper,'' serving on my staff since August 1993--first as a receptionist and then as scheduler. Born in Florence, AL, she is the middle daughter of Judge and Mrs. Larry Mack Smith. Samantha graduated from Hollins College in Virginia in 1992 with a degree in French. She spent a total of 2 years in France both as a student and as a teacher before joining my staff. Her ability to juggle the hectic schedule requests that come into my office has been a tremendous asset to me. I appreciate the fine job she has done. mary k. speis Mary Speis has been with my staff ever since the beginning of my tenure in 1979. Her career on Capitol Hill, however, goes all the way back to 1965, when she served as an assistant to former Illinois Congressman Barratt O'Hara. A native of Washington, DC, her Alabama ties came about thanks to her sister, Jackie, who worked for Alabama Congressman Tom Bevill before moving to Athens, Greece to be with her husband, a native of that beautiful country. Mary has often visited her sister in Greece during the summer recess periods. A graduate of the University of Maryland with a fine arts degree, she landed a job with former Alabama Senator James B. Allen working with the legislative assistants. In 1978, after the death of Senator Allen, she worked for his wife, Marion, who succeeded him in the Senate. In 1979, she came to my office to serve as an aid to the legislative assistants. In 1985, she began working as my personal assistant and has become very special to me and the rest of the staff. yolanda angeline turner Yolanda Turner came on board our ``Senate ship'' in August 1992 as a staff assistant working with the office manager and correspondence management staff. The daughter of Mrs. Velda A. Ragland and Mr. Glenn A. Turner, she is from Suitland, MD. Her mother and sister, Monique A. Turner, work for Senator Bill Bradley, just down the hall from Yolanda. Their work in the Senate is truly a ``family affair.'' Before joining our office, she was a clerk typist for the resource management staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We were all excited earlier this year by the birth of Yolanda's daughter, Breanna Akira Turner. Stanley vines If you want to know about voting statistics and election demographics in the State of Alabama, Stanley Vines is the man to see. With over 20 years of involvement in Alabama politics, he has gathered a wealth of information about voting trends. Stanley's political bloodline runs deep--his father's family has been active in politics in the Bessemer area for over a century. He began political work in 1976 and since that time, has set up phone banks and helped runs numerous campaigns for Alabama candidates. Stanley began serving as field representative in my Birmingham office in 1982, after a 41-year career with American Cast Iron Pipe Co. In the years since, he has helped me better present the people of Alabama by keeping me abreast of the issues and events going on in that area. Born in Watson, AL, Stanley graduated from Birmingham's Phillips High School and attended Jefferson State Junior College. Stanley and his wife, Ethel Catherine Vines, have two sons, Thomas and James. heidi wagner Heidi Wagner has served as a front-office receptionist in my personal office and most recently as clerk and staff assistant for the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts minority staff. A Mobile, AL native, she graduated from the University of South Alabama and is working on a masters degree at American University here in Washington. She is the portrait of cool under pressure, since she is always able to handle even the most demanding tasks and situations with grace, professionalism, and good humor. She is sort of a word ``connoisseur,'' constantly challenging staff with the presentation of new words and definitions to enhance their vocabulary. Her ``Word of the Day'' feature appearing on computer screens each morning was often a welcome way to begin the day. sally walburn The first voice you hear when you call into my Washington office is that of Sally Walburn. Her cheery ``Senator Heflin's office, this is Sally. May I help you?'' has opened up hundreds of conversations with Alabamians. Sally has been my receptionist since June 1996. A native of Tuscaloosa, AL, she is the youngest child of Dr. and Mrs. James Walburn. Sally graduated from Ole Miss in May 1996 with a degree in English. Although her time on my staff has been brief, she has demonstrated her outstanding abilities in dealing with constituents on the ``front line.'' I wish her every future success. james g. whiddon iii Jim Whiddon is currently serving as my counsel on the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts and as legislative assistant for energy and natural resources issues. He has done an outstanding job on these and other issues that have come his way since joining the staff in 1993. He has been especially helpful on bankruptcy reform and the constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Before moving to Washington, he worked in Atlanta. Jim, a native of Montgomery, attended the University of Alabama, where he earned his bachelor of science degree at Samford University in Birmingham, where he obtained his juris doctor degree from the Cumberland School of Law. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable Rodney R. Steele, Chief Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama. janetta whitt-mitchell Janetta Whitt-Mitchell is a native of Mobile, AL. She graduated from Tuskegee University and is a longtime community activist and energetic advocate for the improvement of social conditions. Through her work as my Mobile field representative and other leadership activities, she had helped communities address needs related to health care, employment, human rights, education, law enforcement, economics, and drug abuse. She is a member of the New South Coalition and an associate of the National Organization for Women. She is also first vice president of Mobile's Human Rights Commission and serves on the board of directors of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women's Mobile County Chapter. The daughter of Mr. Charles and Mrs. Mary Lee Whitt, she is married to Dr. Joseph Colvis Mitchell. Janetta has been an invaluable member of my State staff and I truly appreciate her hard work and advocacy on so many issues and projects.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to serve on the Committee on Agriculture since 1981. The agricultural community in Alabama and the Nation, while small in number, is a considerable part of our economy. In fact in Alabama, agriculture and forestry are the largest sectors of the economy. Therefore, I felt compelled to serve on this committee. It has been extremely difficult for most of the newspaper reporters in Alabama to cover the action of this committee. I felt at times that my press secretary needed to give them a map to find the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing room. The issues are complicated and few reporters have an understanding of the basics of farm policy. As a general rule, this accounts for the sparsity of news stories about agriculture in Alabama and Washington newspapers. In addition to farm programs, the committee had jurisdiction over a great number of rural development programs, rural electrification, and rural water programs that are an extremely important aspect that can improve the daily lives of the millions of people that live in rural areas of this Nation. The agricultural community is considerably better off today than when I came to the Senate in 1979. During my years on the Agriculture Committee, we have been able to craft foreign policy which provides market stability and allows U.S. farmers to aggressively pursue international markets. At the same time, these farm programs have dramatically reduced the cost to the U.S. Treasury. And the most important part that is so often overlooked, American farms provide a stable supply of food for American families at a lower cost than any part of the world. Legislation passed by the Committee is often called farm bills. It would be more appropriately entitled Food Safety and Consumer Protection Legislation. Farm Bills In 1981, I had my first experience with the Congress' major farm authorization bill. With this bill, Members who strongly supported agriculture sought to expand foreign markets for U.S. exports and to protect them from selective embargoes. But Alabama's chief priority was the preservation of the peanut program. That year, the USDA and a number of Senators pushed for its elimination. But Alabama's farmers had just suffered 2 years of droughts, and they were already in a difficult situation. The program's proponents managed to push the program through the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 12 to 4. However, it was defeated on the floor of the Senate, and supporters had to work in the back rooms to devise the Heflin-Warner compromise. This effort succeeded. On the Senate floor, Senator Nunn credited me with the compromise: * * * I think the Senator from Alabama has worked longer and harder on the peanut program than anyone I know in this body. He has spent literally hundreds of hours working diligently to protect the program that is of vital interest to the State of Alabama and also the State of Georgia as well as other states. * * * I have been following his lead on this issue as well as many other farm issues, and I thank him for an exceptional job all the way through. However, it was just that--a compromise--and I was not entirely please with the outcome. For instance, although the 1981 farm bill established farm-based poundage quotas, increased loan supports, and a cost-of-production price escalator, it technically eliminated the peanut allotment program. During the farm bill debate, Alabama's delegation was also very concerned with improving soybean production and exports. Over the previous few years, the U.S. share of the world soybean export market had dropped from 90 percent to 70 percent. Despite this drop, U.S. soybean production had tripled, but only because planting had tripled. Crop yields had not improved, and export policies were lagging. In fact, if the situation did not change, the United States would only create a domestic surplus of soybeans. So I introduced a bill to create the Research Soybean Institute, which would examine ways to improve production, exporting, and marketing. The institute would also address problems such as the cyst nematode parasite--and other issues like it. These provisions became a part of the 1981 farm bill. With Senator Melcher's help, we passed another amendment to the farm bill which required that imported meats be held to the same inspection standards as domestic meats. Specifically, we sought to prohibit horse and kangaroo meats from being sold as ``beef.'' Clearly, this language had a dual purpose, to protect the interests of the cattle ranchers, and to ensure that consumers who bought hamburgers actually ate beef. When the farm bill debate came to an end, I objected strongly to the administration's substitute bill. Although it retained the peanut compromise, the kangaroo and horse meat language, and the soybean institute, this bill has gone too far. This was the first attack on the farmer during my career; he had become a victim of the USDA's fiscal austerity in the Republican administration's sometimes too broad attempts to cut domestic spending in the wrong places. I objected chiefly to the commodity provisions, especially loan levels and target price figures, but I voted for the bill anyway because I thought it was more important to have a 4-year bill than none at all. But implementation of this farm bill proved nearly as difficult, especially for peanuts. The USDA tried to enact regulations to cut the peanut poundage quotas. Its cuts would only hurt the small quota holders who could not afford the overhead of production. Supporters contracted the USDA, and cited the provisions in the peanut language which required a fair and equitable system for quota reduction. Targeting the small farmer like this was--* * * a misinterpretation of both the spirit and intent of the Congress if not an outright violation of the letter of the law itself. The USDA agreed to back off until it had received clarification of congressional intent. The years following this farm bill also saw difficulties for the cotton program. In 1984, the administration sought a freeze in target prices, which it won. I blocked the bill when it came to the Senate floor, and I set conditions on this freeze. Specifically, I succeeded in setting the inventory carryover trigger for the paid diversion of cotton at 2.7 rather than 4 million bales in 1985, increasing the rate from $0.25 to $0.30 per pound if this inventory reached 4.1 million bales, and $0.35 if it reached 4.7 million bales. I also secured assurances for an extra $500 million in CCC export credit loan guarantees for 1984, including $100 million specifically for cotton, and $2 billion in 1985. Other successes which came out of this bill included changes to the FmHA disaster loan programs, including increased funding and increased loan ceilings, eligibility expansion to counties adjacent to declared disaster areas, extension of application deadlines to 8 months, extension of repayments limits by 8 years, and scheduling of interest rates to their original level or the current prevailing rate, whichever was lower. Sometimes it's like dealing with a mule--you have to use a 2 by 4 to get its attention. When the next farm bill around in 1985, we introduced the Southern Agriculture Act of 1985 preemptively to save the peanut and cotton programs. Specifically, it would increase peanut poundage quotas to the existing level for the national, edible market. I also sought to allow for double cropping, conservation tillage, and other ideas endemic to the South. But these programs represented only one small part of overall farm policy; the export-import programs were certainly as great. I had hoped that the United States might also be able to increase its share of foreign markets. The House Agriculture Committee adopted my Southern Agriculture Act that year without changes, making it, for a time, part of the farm bill. House Chairman Kika de la Garza of Texas gave me considerable support. Incorporation of the peanut program was eminently logical because it was the only program which had actually made the Government money over the previous 2 years. The Senate Agriculture Committee also adopted much of my measure, but I knew that it would be difficult to pass it through the full Senate. The Senate committee also incorporated language proposed by Senator Dole which I cosponsored to create a National Commission on Agriculture Policy into the farm bill. When the Senate committee passed its version of the bill, I was certainly pleased that it included the Southern Agriculture Act, but I was disappointed with its export provisions. As I saw it, the problem with U.S. farm exports had been that the agriculture secretaries had not used the tools Congress created for them to implement an aggressive export promotional program. In fact, when the conference committee reported its version of the bill, I was struck that it deceived and betrayed soybean farmers. The conferees had dropped our amendment to prevent the U.S. Government from providing loans or grants to foreign soybean producers. The committee had also changed another of our amendments to establish a marketing loan without lowering soybean loan rates. I intended the measure, which had passed the Senate, to authorize the Agriculture Secretary to implement a plan to increase competitiveness of American soybeans in foreign markets. The conference version, however, effectively legislated lower soybean prices for the farmer since it lowered the loan rates. American taxpayer dollars were being used to enhance the competitive capability of major soybean competitor countries such as Brazil and Argentina. In fact, I voted against the 1985 farm bill coming out of conference. I believe that it effectively legislated lower commodity prices. The credit provisions were also unforgiving. FmHA loan availability decreased, and foreclosures were therefore likely to increase, I believed. However, I was pleased that the bill maintained the peanut program, included better research titles, and addressed conservation. Specifically, the bill included the Conservation Reserve Program, and the swamp-buster and sod-buster provisions, which would allow for better long-term farming. In hindsight, though, one of the most important provisions, if not the most important, was the establishment and implementation of the cotton marketing loan. It is generally understood that U.S. agricultural commodities must be competitive in the world market if the sector is to be economically viable. Some 95 percent of cotton entering world trade does so with the benefit of a subsidy of one kind or another. The net effect is a world price which is often below the cost of production in most, if not all, exporting countries. In shaping cotton policy to address this kind of global competition, we had to decide whether to fashion a program which would enable U.S. cotton to compete aggressively or, instead, assume the role of residual supplier. Until implementation of the marketing loan in 1985, U.S. cotton was generally relegated to the role of residual supplier. In 1985, however, we made a decision to meet subsidized competition head on. The establishment of the marketing loan has served to accomplish several fundamental marketing objectives: First, permits U.S. commodities to meet price competition, second, avoids excessive stock accumulations, third, allows producers to market commodities over a period of time, rather than dumping the entire crop on the market at harvest time and fourth, serves as a safety net under producer income. I am proud of the cotton marketing loan and believe it has become the cornerstone of the U.S. cotton program. The indisputable success in the industry supports this assertion as the marketing loan has spurred domestic mill consumption and aided exports. For instance, the marketing loan is responsible for: reversing a 26-year decline in offtake of U.S. cotton; reversing a 43-year decline in U.S. mill cotton consumption; and reversing a 70-year decline in cotton's share of U.S. mill fiber consumption. When the Senate considered its version of the 1986 tax reform bill, I strongly supported an amendment to restore provisions which allowed farmers to average their incomes over several years. It made up for revenue losses, which were estimated at $66 million, by repealing a tax break on wealthy, foreign real estate investors in the United States. Since there had been an increasing amount of foreign investor speculation in U.S. property, particularly in farmland, I thought it was appropriate to compensate for the revenue losses through this source. Another amendment the Senate adopted would refund unused investment tax credits to farmers. Specifically, the language provided for farmers to apply the credits against previous years' taxes at $0.50 per dollar. It also established yearly limits for the refund. The authors of this tax reform bill sought to eliminate credits for the future. However, since farmers were heavily capitalized with the high level of mechanization of modern farming, Congress needed to make tax reform a little fairer for agriculture by permitting farmers to trade in some of their unused tax credits for cash. In 1986, critics of the cotton program maintained that it involved million dollar payments to large corporations. But this was an unfair characterization of the program. These large payments resulted from the Secretary's discretion; they were not mandated by the program itself. In fact, the program had ameliorated price reductions from domestic surpluses and improved sales overseas due to U.S. cotton prices that were on par with world prices for the first time in nearly 2 years. Competitive prices should provide the commodity with a turnaround. In 1987, I introduced the farmers recovery tax bill to restore the income averaging price, investment tax credits, and capital gains, all of which had been repealed in the 1986 tax reform bill. As in the case of the amendments which I supported in 1986, these provisions applied exclusively to farmers. Before the passage of that bill, it had appeared that our tax policy was the only policy that provided some equity or incentive to the agriculture and timber sectors, but to compound the economic woes of rural America, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 repealed provisions of the tax laws that were beneficial to these areas of our economy. When the 1990 farm bill came before the Congress, President Bush's administration sought to cut the cotton and peanut programs, but it failed. We also won a marketing loan for soybeans, specifically to increase America's international competitiveness in this market. Last, the bill included provisions we designed to provide funding for rural firefighting and to double the amount the Government could spend on the development of rural water and sewer systems. As in 1985, I introduced the Southern Agriculture Act to reauthorize the cotton and peanut programs. The administration had proposed a 10- percent cut in these programs, but this bill would maintain the 1985 bill's statutes. What could the farmer buy that cost 90 percent of what it did in 1985? Certainly, farm machinery and fertilizer prices had not decreased. With regard to the peanut program, Secretary Yeutter's proposed cuts would be devastating. If it had been adopted by Congress, it would not only destroy the peanut farmers, it would also cause a serious recession in the peanut-producing areas of Alabama and other States. At the end of July, the Senate defeated an amendment to implement his cuts. One of the biggest problems about forging the peanut compromise in 1990 was the fact that division existed among the country's peanut farmers. Georgia's farmers had split from the rest, and I assumed the role of peacemaker between Georgia's peanut-growers and the rest, including farmers from Alabama. Notably, my compromise was the first supported by all the grower groups and major peanut product manufacturers. The soybean loan included in the bill would serve to combat cheaper foreign competition. The loan was something I had fought for since the 1985 farm bill. In 1986, I objected to the Reagan administration's decision to pursue the World Bank's loan to Argentina. Argentina was America's second greatest competitor in soybeans, and it was able to undercut U.S. prices and flood the world markets by directly subsidizing those firms that process and export soybeans. The World Bank loan would further subsidize competition to the United States--an unfair practice. In 1987, I attached language to the agricultural trade bill to prohibit U.S. subsidies for foreign farmers competing with U.S. farmers. One issue that had brought more complaints and more attention from Alabama farmers is the Government subsidies that enhanced the competitiveness of agricultural producers in countries such as Brazil and Argentina. Sadly enough, many of these subsidies were provided not by the governments of these countries, but rather by the U.S. Government. At the end of 1987, I attached a soybean marketing program to the Senate budget reconciliation bill. This amendment would revive language that I had attached to the 1985 farm bill, but the conferees had effectively killed the provision by leaving it to the Secretary's discretion. He did not exercise that discretion. The soybean program involved CCC loans from 1988 through 1990, and I modeled it after my 1985 cotton program. I hoped that it would be an innovative approach that would provide enough flexibility to the Secretary of Agriculture to meet our world competitors on a level playing field. Although it passed the Senate shortly later, I had to reintroduce it in 1988. With a marketing loan, U.S. soybeans will be available on the world market at the same price as that made possible by foreign government subsidies for our foreign competitors. At that time, U.S. soybean acreage had dropped to a quarter of its 1979 level. Of course, the loan ultimately became a part of the 1990 farm bill. With other provisions I included in the final bill, I sought to increase the farmer's flexibility to plant second crops on program plots. This practice is known as double-cropping. With the Southern Agriculture Act, we also sought to create a Southern Institute for Agriculture Resource Policy to conduct scientific studies on improved farming techniques. The committee also approved a proposal to provide Federal matching funds for rural firefighters. The money would go to State forestry agencies and volunteers, and it was included in the final version of the bill. My language also proposed a Southern Forest Regeneration Center. The final bill included my provisions to expand the Talladega National Forest into Cherokee County and extend an Alabama trail closer to the Appalachian Trail. The final bill also included our language to create the star schools program. Through the use of state-of-the-art telecommunications equipment, the Star Schools-Medlink program that was passed in the 1990 farm bill allows small rural schools or hospitals to be linked with the highest quality educational programs and technology developments of other areas. Using this technology in a medical situation, a doctor at a clinic in a rural area could send moving images of a brain scan to a specialist at a hospital hundreds of miles away. The final bill also included language to provide Federal assistance for rural development, including water and sewers, and a loan program to aid small, rural businesses. There is no one answer that every community can use to achieve economic vitality. However, there are common threads. First of all, the leadership for rural development must be taken to local community organizations--rural electric cooperatives, counties, economic development district, and other local entities. I was especially proud of these provisions as they were included in the final version of the bill. With Senator Pryor's help, we included language in the 1990 farm bill to authorize $15 million for research on poultry diseases and to require that foreign poultry meet domestic inspection standards. However, President Bush failed to meet this requirement, arguing that it was an impediment to free trade. In fact, he even imposed a 1990 hiring freeze on inspectors. In 1991, peanut farmers faced another problem when the ITC ruled that 300 million pounds of foreign peanuts be allowed into the American market--a total equaling 10 percent of the domestic market. I contacted the President to protest this ruling, in some large part because it violated language that I included in the 1990 farm bill to require that imports meet the same quality as the domestic product. Chinese peanuts, known to be infected with the striped virus, would be among the imports. Further, allowing such a high number into the country would cost the government $84 million, according to the USDA. Although he reduced the number to 100 million, the President decided to allow the peanuts into the country. In 1993, we contacted the trade representative to urge inclusion of a provision in NAFTA requiring that the stringent domestic inspection standards be imposed on imports. Although farm bills had always been the result of compromise, and therefore were somewhat less than I had wanted, supporters had succeeded in maintaining the commodity programs at an acceptable level until this year. The 1996 farm bill debate posed a serious threat to the continuation of farm programs, and southern farmers would be especially affected by various proposals. From the beginning of last year, the Republicans had pushed for elimination of the commodity programs and the price supports. Given the successes of these programs, like the cotton program, I cannot understand the prejudice with which they approached the cuts. To pass programs that I believe are worthwhile, I have frequently involved myself in the strategy which has worked so well for Senators over the years. To demonstrate this point, when I saw that the cotton program was in serious trouble, I offered by support for other programs to gain backing for cotton. As I told the American Sheep Industry Association in June 1994, there isn't much wool in Alabama, but there isn't much cotton in Idaho or Montana. But if those of us in agriculture didn't work together, we cannot survive the plans to dismantle the fundamentals of farming in this country. As it came up for review, supporters tried to impress upon Members the importance of the cotton program. The cotton program was designed to meet market conditions in the United States and abroad. In 1995, the year that the Republicans tried to eliminate it, the cotton program proved itself effective. Although there was a bumper cotton crop, the market price remained above the target price. Additionally, we stressed that wheat and feed grains account for 50 percent of all farm program costs, and the cotton program cost only 10 percent of the total Federal farm outlays. Agriculture had already taken its fair share of cuts. The agriculture budget had dropped from $26 billion in 1985 to just under $10 billion in 1995. However, reductions in the peanut program had never resulted in Americans paying less for their groceries. The cost is always absorbed by someone in the chain between the producer and the supermarket, and economic studies and history do not suggest that cuts would reduce the price now. With agriculture very much in mind, I voted against the Republican budget resolution. This resolution would have cut $8 billion from farming over 5 years. Naturally, I had other concerns when I decided to oppose the bill including Medicare and Social Security, as well as the idea of promising to cut the deficit and taxes. After the Senate agriculture committee completed its mark-up on the budget resolution, preliminary estimates for the cuts in the commodity programs totaled $13.3 billion over 7 years. Chairman Lugar's intention was to do his best to eliminate the commodity programs, and he had stated his strong opposition for some time. Along with others, I continued the fight for the preservation of the cotton and peanut programs. Noting that cotton had enjoyed a record year, I promised to introduce a bill to extend that program as written, with just a few changes. The average peanut farmer has only 98 acres, whereas the 7 largest corporations that use peanuts to manufacture their products had more than $140 billion in total sales during 1994. It is no coincidence that some Members of Congress who oppose the program just happen to have some of those same corporations in their states. It is these same corporations that stand to be the big winners if the peanut program were eliminated, not the real consumers. The GAO had issued a study which showed that the consumer absorbed a cost of $300-$500 million, but the program's opponents misrepresented this study in the last round, arguing that this cost was passed onto the retail consumer. As a matter of fact, in testimony before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and its Chairman, Charlie Rose, the GAO testified that the consumer they referenced was the first purchaser of peanuts, or the manufacturer. They further testified in substance that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that any reduction in the loan rate would be passed along to the retail consumer. Critics who sought to eliminate the peanut program during the 1995 farm bill debated used this GAO report as one justification for ending the peanut program. Armed with the earlier GAO testimony, representatives from the peanut product manufacturers association were asked if any reduction in the loan rate would be passed to the consumer. They responded by stating that loan rate reductions would not be passed along to the consumer, instead, savings would be used to develop new products. The peanut program has served to balance the playing field between small farmers and multinational corporations. It is bad policy to eliminate the peanut program only to increase corporate profits at the expense of rural economies and the true consumer who will notice absolutely no difference in the price they pay at the grocery store. In September, I introduced the Southern Agriculture Act of 1995 to revise and extend the loan and other programs for cotton, peanuts, and oilseeds. Under this bill, the cotton program would have been extended as written. The 1994 crop had been a record crop in production, exports, and total offtake. Many of our competitors had experienced insect infestations causing higher world market prices. As a matter of fact, cotton prices had climbed to their highest levels at any time since the Civil War, topping $1 a pound. Therefore, I saw no reason to alter a program that was functioning effectively. The peanut program would be slightly changed, with a freeze imposed on the support prices at the 1995 crop level. In an effort to address the claims of the peanut program's critics, the National Peanut Growers Group adopted a series of program changes to eliminate all taxpayer costs and open the program to new products. I included many of the NPPA no-net-cost reforms into my peanut title, including eliminating the undermarketings provisions. However, from a strategy perspective, I knew that the farm bill debate would require a great deal of give and take and felt that under no circumstances should we begin negotiating from our bottom line. Since they did not receive price supports, my bill would have extended the marketing loans for soybeans and oilseeds. In addition to extending the marketing loan, we increased the loan rate from $4.92 a bushel to $5.25 a bushel. The lower loan rate had ceased to be an effective safety net for oilseed producers. Our title on oilseeds was heralded by the American Soybean Association as the best proposal put forward for oilseed producers. In the end, a modified version of my proposal was adopted and signed into law. The reason why I introduced this bill was simply that I utterly opposed Chairman Lugar's farm bill. Among other things, his bill would have destroyed the peanut program. However, I believed that 14 of 18 Senators on the committee favored a peanut bill without a cut in the price support. Because he had such a strong opposition, the chairman employed delay tactics to push the bill back to the reconciliation deadline when the members of the Budget Committee could write the farm bill. These Senators were much less sympathetic to the needs of the southern peanut farmer. At that time, certain Senators tried to put an additional assessment on peanut producers. They were trying to force the farmer to pay for the entire adminstrative cost of the program. However, the Senators who pushed for this assessment were from wheat States; notably, they did not try to impose the same condition on wheat farmers. However, we secured language which stated that the existing budget deficit assessment paid by producers would be targeted to offsetting program costs and no other assessments would then be necessary. With regard to the ongoing farm bill negotiations, the Agriculture chairman continued to refuse meetings, despite the strong bipartisan support for the peanut program. He knew that he would not get his way, but that was no reason to keep us from meeting to come up with a budget bill that saved money but did not destroy the peanut program. In the end of committee action that year, the farm provisions included a peanut compromise, but I was never consulted. I was shut out of all discussions about it; the Republicans told me it would be their bill. I could not explain to farmers why these Senators voted for a 7-year program for wheat, corn, rice, sugar, and other commodities, but decided to kill the peanut program after 5 years. Simply stated, this bill would force a disproportionate share of agricultural budget cuts on the South. It would have its most profound negative effects on new and old farmers there. Most of the growth in cotton production had occurred in the South, but the new cotton program would shut out new farmers from its provisions. This bill required that farmers demonstrate participation in 3 of the previous 5 years in order to continue participation in the cotton program. Many of the new cotton acres in this program were the result of the successful boll weevil eradication program. Land once infested with boll weevils had recently been eradicated, however, the majority of these new acres had not been in the program long enough to qualify under these new rules. Eligibility for participation in the cotton program would be reduced nationally by 30 percent, and in Alabama, 38 percent of cotton farmers would be excluded. Furthermore, Buck Johnson, director of the Federal Farm Service agency of Georgia, estimated that the Senate's version of the reconciliation bill would put 30 percent of older farmers in the South out of business. In response to being closed out from the historically bipartisan task of writing farm legislation, and seeing the unacceptable changes to the peanut program, Representative Charlie Rose and I introduced a no-net- cost peanut program bill in an effort to preserve a viable program for peanut farmers. It would achieve savings by eliminating the standing 1.35-million-ton floor for the national poundage quota; in fact, the Heflin-Rose peanuts program would have saved $43 million more than the Republican plan contained in the reconciliation bill. Under our no-net- cost bill, the Agriculture Secretary would set this national poundage quota, thereby eliminating undermarketings and limiting disaster transfer payments. By contrast, the Republican plan would reduce the support price and freeze it for 7 years. The USDA estimated that the Republican plan would immediately reduce peanut farmers' income by 30 percent. Not only did it cost more, the Republican plan slashed a peanut farmer's income by $68 per ton. A study by Auburn University on the impact of potential policy changes in the peanut program found that a reduction in the support price to $610 per ton, and a reduction in the national poundage quota to 1.1 million tons, would result in a negative impact of $219 million and a loss of almost 3,000 jobs in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. The economic impact and job losses are not limited solely to peanut producers. Under this analysis, the wholesale and retail trade, service industries, real estate and financial sectors are especially hard hit. In fact, nationwide, the study indicated total job losses of 5,440 and a negative economic impact of $375 million. The cotton program in the Republican proposal, too, made no sense. Under its provisions, cotton farmers would no longer be paid for the cotton they produced. Instead, they would sign a production flexibility contract which would subsidize a farmer, whether or not he produces a crop. These decoupled payments would apply to cotton, rice, wheat, corn, and feed grain producers, and they would actually encourage a wheat or corn grower to plant cotton if the world price were high enough to justify the switch. The Republican bill provided for 7 years of narcotic welfare payments designed to bring about the corporate takeover of agrarian America. This Republican proposal would have undermined everything accomplished with respect to farm legislation; it would have eliminated the farmer safety net and disrupted the delicate balance of supply-price stability taken for granted by consumers. I commend the President for vetoing this bill. It would have created a welfare state. the Republicans claimed that they could lower interest rates by balancing the budget, but ironically, their farm bill raised interest rates solely on CCC borrowers. They also claimed that they wanted farm programs to be more market oriented, but it removed the 8- month-loan extension for cotton. Further, their failure to pass legislation left farmers with no clear direction for the upcoming planting season, and, therefore, banks would not give farmers loans for this year's crops. At the end of last year, Representative Rose and I introduced another no-net-cost peanut program that would be funded by an assessment on imported peanuts and revenue from NAFTA and GATT. This bill would have maintained the $678-per-pound-quota rate. It would also assure that revenue from NAFTA and GATT would pay for the program rather than reducing farm income. Last, the bill would require that imported peanuts meet the same high quality standards as domestic peanuts, ensuring that they were not grown with chemicals and pesticides banned in the United States. Clearly, the Congress had failed rural America by not passing a farm bill. By including, historically, stand-alone-farm legislation in the broad Republican proposal to balance the budget, farmers and rural America became hostage to a myriad of issues culminating with a Presidential veto. As a result, farmers were left without congressional direction for the upcoming planting season and were anxiously awaiting a new farm law. This necessity had become most pressing at the beginning of this year. Without a farm bill, the Agriculture Secretary would be forced to implement the 1949 Agriculture Act. That law provided a formula based on parity with the standard of living in 1949. The difference in the value of the dollar and the standard of living between 1949 and 1996 would create an explosion in the price of food. But fearful of efforts to resurrect the freedom-to-farm bill, I pointed out that its provisions to guarantee payments to farmers whether they produced a crop or not was fundamentally flawed. In times of high market prices, the program would provide a bonus check, and it would not be sufficient in times of low market prices. It is unconscionable to make these kinds of payments in times of high market prices, especially when we are reducing school lunches and other essential programs. Ultimately, the Senate passed a modified version of the farm provisions that had been contained in the Republican reconciliation bill. I voted for it, because we were able to make marginal improvements in the bill and, therefore, I felt that the good outweighed the bad. Most importantly, the Senate version of this bill reinstated permanent law. By doing so, the inclusion of permanent law ensures that Congress must again address farm laws rather than simply allowing them to expire. Republican lawmakers had intended the decoupled, fixed-but-declining payments to farmers to be the price paid for eliminating farm programs. Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, believed that a stable and abundant food supply to be in the national interest and, therefore, refused to turn our back on American farmers. The inclusion of permanent law was an enormous victory for Democrats thus ensuring our commitment to farming families and the role they play in our society. Additionally, I was able to beat, soundly, efforts by a freshman Senator to kill the peanut program and to keep a 5-percent penalty for the use of the loan program out of the bill. Opponents of the peanut program had conspired to include this last provision to penalize producers who put their peanuts into the loan. The provision was removed from consideration due to my strong objections. During conference, the committee fought off a number of detrimental peanut provisions. I successfully fought off a House provision to lower the loan rate another 5 percent if a producer put his peanuts under loan. If this language had passed the rate would have dropped to $579.50 per ton; we worked to maintain it at $610. I also fought off another House provision to allow unlimited cross-county sale of peanuts. Instead, the committee adopted a compromise to allow 40 percent transfers after 5 years. Under the House-passed version, producers would have to pay an additional assessment to cover program costs if any at the end of the year. Further, the shellers' assessment had been exempted by House Republicans from offsetting program costs even though they benefit from the program. However, we were able to arrange this so the shellers' assessment will also go to offsetting the costs, which will protect the producers from having an unlimited possibility for increased assessments. As far as the pool compliance language is concerned, the House bill would exempt the profits from additional peanuts from going to cover peanut program losses. This was changed to the Senate version that would permit additional gains from buyback and redemption to be used to offset program costs. This change would also reduce the possibility of the need for increased assessments on producers. Problems with the overall farm bill included: It did not provide a safety net for farmers and it made payments regardless of price, but it did give farmers something to work with as they prepare for planting season; the peanut language would cut farmers' income; but cotton came out fairly well, specifically preserving the marketing loan, and back payments would come soon, which would help weather-damaged cotton farmers. Administration: In the early 1980's, the greatest problem facing farmers was the 20-percent or higher interest rates. Most farmers who borrowed money to finance their crops in 1980 borrowed the money when interest rates were already high, then they lost money because of the drought. I arranged meetings with Reagan's Agriculture Secretary Block to impress this point upon him. During 1982, I fought the Reagan administration's plan to subject agriculture to FTC control in the Commerce Committee. American farmers were having a tough enough time making ends meet without having to deal with yet another layer of bureaucrats in Washington, DC, meddling in their affairs. I strongly supported the recent reorganization of the USDA. During 1994, the Agriculture Committee considered a bill to facilitate the reorganization. The bill would reform the administrative functions, and reassign sub-Cabinet officers by mission, reduce the number of agencies from 43 to 29, and it would consolidate country offices in favor of one-stop shopping centers. Through this effort, the USDA hoped to reduce staff and cut costs. Although much of this reorganization could, and did, take place on the regulatory level, the committee wanted to be certain to work out any legislation that might become necessary. Given concerns about the deficit, the time had clearly come to reduce the size and cost of the USDA in favor of a more efficient department. In the final days of the 103d Congress, a USDA reorganization bill was passed creating a more streamlined and efficient Department of Agriculture. Disaster aid/crop insurance: I have always done my best to pay attention to the needs of farmers in times of natural disasters in Alabama. In 1979, we had a drought and Hurricane Frederick. In 1980, we had an even worse drought. In 1982, interest rates forced me to request Agriculture Secretary Block to initiate the Economic Emergency Loan Program. The same year, I urged Block to change a FmHA regulation requiring the rescheduling of loan at the cripplingly high rates of the day. I testified before the Forestry Subcommittee to warn of the impact of these rates. In 1982, I also fought to save the NWS agriculture program during Commerce Committee action. The farm weather forecasting service saved American farmers more than $750 million each year in the production costs of the major agricultural commodities of cotton, corn, soybeans, livestock, wheat, and rice, but it only cost $1.2 million. The committee approved a bill I cosponsored to combat these high interest rates on farms. The bill would extend the economic emergency loan program for a year and create an individual evaluation program to reschedule existing FmHA loans at their original interest rates, rather than the high rates of 1982. I also called a farm crisis meeting in Montgomery to discuss interest rates and other problems facing the State's farmers. In 1983, the FmHA ran out of money to pay for its operating loans in 17 States, including Alabama. I urged the USDA to reallocate the money, threatening legislative action, the USDA complied. Spring freezes also plagued farmers in 1983. Near the year's end, I sponsored a measure to disregard payment-in-kind acreage in eligibility determination for natural disaster emergency loans. The existing program required that a farmer suffer a 30-percent loss to be eligible. However, payment-in-kind acreage would not count in these estimates, so they were frequently inaccurate. In 1984, the Senate passed a bill I cosponsored to establish a 15-member special task force on agricultural credit to ensure its availability at reasonable interest rates. I noted a survey of bankers, many of whom believed that farmers would default on their loans. Further, 100,000 farmers would be forced out of business that year, and the statistics indicated that half of family farmers would disappear in less than a generation. In 1985, I emphasized the farm credit crisis in the country, with a farm debt the size of the Federal deficit; the FmHA had not acted to combat the problem--it had $630 million available for Federal loan guarantees but used only $25 million. That same year, I met with Willie Nelson to advise him on how to distribute the proceeds from FarmAid. We had another drought in 1986, which spurred me to begin hearings to investigate drought cycles in the South and possible ways to handle them. In 1987, I introduced a bill to save the farm credit system. It would have authorized bonds and the restructuring of the system, including a cooling-off period before mergers went into effect. It would protect important farmers' stockholdings in the system and establish an assistance board to financial institutions providing farm loans. I introduced another amendment to protect advanced payment for prepayment accounts held by Federal land banks, part of the farm credit system. The amendment would simply have required that money deposited into these advanced payment accounts would immediately, prior to the capital depletion or insolvency of a Federal land bank, be applied as payment against the borrower's loan. Alabama suffered another drought in 1988. I introduced a drought assistance bill to mandate emergency aid from the Secretary of Agriculture. The bill also included a private water project. It would have created water cooperatives financed by loans or bonds to transport water for irrigation. When conferees finished their report, I criticized their changes to the feed and livestock provisions, but I was pleased that the House had not weakened the peanut provisions. In 1989, I pushed the Air Force to track hurricanes in the gulf and Pacific coast States; Hurricane Frederick in 1979, for example, had caused relatively little property damage and loss of life because of advanced warnings. The Air Force agreed to retain the WC-130 program. In August of that year, the Senate approved the Rural Partnership Act of 1989. The bill strengthened Federal support of State and regional economic programs, or rural electric cooperatives, and of land grant university research and extension programs. It was only a modest beginning, but it might be a great help to rural communities. That same month, the Senate also approved a disaster relief bill. Alabama had another drought in 1990. And we had an unusually rainy spring in 1991. With Senator Cochran, I introduced legislation that year to force the President to provide emergency funding. The USDA had made money available through FmHA loans, but the President had not delivered it according to his authority provided by a 1991 supplemental appropriations bill. In the fall of that year, I supported the passage of a bill to provide aid through FEMA. This bill included language practically identical to language I introduced during the 1990 farm bill debate to make 65-percent payments to farmers who had suffered 35 percent or more in losses. After continued contacts with the President, he finally released the disaster money in 1992. Winter storms and flooding, as well as a number of tornadoes, plagued the State in 1994. Tropical storm Alberto also caused a great deal of flooding that year. I also pushed the disaster assistance amendment to include funding for flood victims in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida in the fiscal 1995 agriculture appropriations. I also pushed a bill I sponsored to authorize funding for flood relief through the Agriculture Committee. The Senate passed this measure unanimously. In fact, the vote on flood relief compelled me to miss my chance to act as the President's personal representative on the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Guam; I had served as Marine lieutenant and I was one of the first on the beaches. In 1995, I asked the USDA to extend the Federal crop insurance deadline; there were a number of farmers who had not applied. The USDA established this deadline under the previous year's crop insurance bill, but it would not help any farmers who had not applied; they would no longer be eligible for disaster payments. With the passage of Federal crop insurance reform late in 1994, the program signaled a break from the routine of passing disaster bills. With this new program and approach, I knew there would be a period of adjustment. I believed that it was a reasonable request given that Congress had only months before passed the crop insurance reform and USDA had not fully implemented the program while expecting farmers to educate themselves and embrace the reforms in a very short period of time. The least that could be done was extend the crop insurance sign up deadline and allow farmers adequate time to inform themselves of these significant changes regarding disaster assistance. Hurricanes Erin and Opal passed through Alabama in 1995. I cosponsored a Cochran bill to authorize the Agriculture Secretary to provide supplemental crop disaster assistance in addition to benefits provided by the Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994. Cotton producers had been plagued by a severe drought and worm infestations during the 1995 crop. This was particularly disappointing due to the fact that 1994 was a record year for the U.S. cotton crop. Expectations were high for 1995 and nationwide plantings were up by as much as 20 percent in some States. While the drought contributed a great deal to the 1995 cotton disaster, the insect infestations were particularly devastating. The insect situation was so bad that the EPA authorized the temporary use of the insecticide Pirate to fight the tobacco budworm and beet army worm. The final blow to cotton farmers was Hurricane Opal. After already experiencing terrible growing conditions in 1995, just prior to harvesting what cotton that was left, Opal took care of the cotton that the drought and insects had not. Hurricane Opal was a devastating storm, not only for its timing regarding cotton farmers, but for all Alabamians in southeast Alabama. Opal caught a great deal of structural damage and produced a large amount of debris. Fortunately, we were able to successfully petition the USDA for assistance under the Emergency Conservation Program [ECP]. Under the ECP, Alabamians received approximately $5 million in assistance for debris removal and structural repair. In an effort to address the problem of annual disaster assistance bills, and provide a model for crop insurance reform, in 1993 I began meeting with grower groups to hear their ideas on an effective system of crop insurance. In this endeavor, the National Cotton Council was particularly helpful. The message from farmers was that the cost of production was continuing to rise, cotton prices were declining or flat at best, and disaster assistance was triggered only by production or yield losses. As a result of these roundtable meetings, I introduced the Farmers' Risk Management Act of 1994. This legislation called on the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to offer producers the option of a cost-of- production system which would be based upon each individual producer's actual cost of production. This bill would have also allowed a producer to choose between using his actual yields and his farm program yields in determining his crop insurance yields. Many of the ideas put forth in this legislation were rolled into the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994. As a matter of fact, the Heflin proposal on a cost-of-production system was used to design an income-protection pilot program that is being implemented this year. This new approach will cover farmers when gross income falls below established limits. This pilot program creates a system that would guard against yield losses and low harvest prices. The implementation of this pilot program could not have come at a more important time. This first year's experience with the catastrophic coverage under the new crop insurance reforms has proven to be inadequate. More importantly, though, after the 1996 farm bill and its uncertain future effects on American farmers, we find ourselves faced with the possible phase-out of farm programs. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that we have a reliable crop insurance plan that will provide some type of safety net for producers. The significance of this new approach is that it addresses fluctuations in price, where the current crop insurance program only takes into account losses from reduced yields. I am proud of these efforts made on behalf of trying to forge a new and more effective direction in regard to crop insurance. It is my hope that this pilot program will grown and be implemented on a national level. In 1984, Senator Hollings and I introduced a bill to create a national storm-scale operational and research meteorology [STORM] program to update the country's extreme weather prediction systems. With this bill, we sought to emphasize the transition from the old radar systems to the implementation of the new NEXRAD system. This bill passed the Senate, but it died in the House. Senator Hollings and I reintroduced this bill in 1986 after NASA lost a weather satellite. Our resolution would also have urged the administration to launch another GOES satellite and increase weather reconnaissance flights in the interim. The Commerce Committee passed this resolution in June. In 1990, the battle to preserve Huntsville's weather station began; the NWS had proposed dropping the weather station serving northern Alabama in the implementation of its NEXRAD system. That year, I met with the Deputy Director of the NWS to urge him to consider Huntsville's proposal to donate a weather radar system. I continued this fight in 1994, making certain to be continually in contact with the NWS and the NOAA to advocate maintenance of the Huntsville facility. In 1994, I also contacted the Vice President to solicit his help in the continuation of the Huntsville National Weather Service Radar. I told him that I believed eliminating the station under NEXRAD would leave northern Alabama and southern Tennessee in a vulnerable position. That same year, I extracted promises from the Director of the NWS, Dr. Elbert Friday, to push back closing of this doppler radar station. I also introduced the Weather Service Modernization Review Act of 1994 to require a study on the potential impact of closing weather stations. The Vice President ordered the study by the National Research Council. This study revealed that the Huntsville area would, in fact, suffer from the lack of its own NEXRAD station. In 1995, I cited this study, and contacted the committee chairmen who oversaw the NOAA and the NWS: Gramm, Pressler, and Hollings. The Commerce Committee approved an amendment to the Weather Service authorization to make it more difficult to close 32 weather stations, including the Huntsville station. I also contacted the Secretary of Commerce to advocate a new station in the Huntsville area; he promised to install a center in northern Alabama. After his death this year, the NWS announced that it would honor its commitment to install that center. After a number of tornadoes in northeast Alabama in 1994, the USDA and I jointly announced that the NWS' All Hazard Weather Radio Network would put up a station to provide early warnings in the area. I had toured this area, including Goshen and its United Methodist Church-- which had been destroyed by the storm--with Vice President Gore, where I solicited his support to deal with such problems in the future. However, I was concerned about the performance of early warning systems in the State after more tornadoes hit Arab and Joppa the next year. In 1995, I supported a Cochran amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to restore funding for the agricultural weather service centers at Stoneville, MS, and in Auburn. Weather is the single most important external element in the production equation. But this year, as the deadline for these centers' cutoff approached, I met with NWS officials to discuss forecasts in the future. With Representative Browder, I pushed for continuation of these ag forecasts by transferring the NWS over to the USDA. Despite Senator Cochran's support, who realized the importance of specialized ag weather forecasts, the Republican agenda of the 104th Congress called for downsizing the Federal Government and this vital service fell prey to privatization. Research An action I am most proud of in the field of research is the passage of a bill that I authorized making it a Federal crime to vandalize, destroy or make unauthorized use of animal research facilities, including data, equipment and the animals themselves. The Animal Research Facilities Protection Act, which was signed into law as the Animal Enterprise Act would impose severe penalties on individuals or groups who interfered with medical and other research facilities where animals are use. Unfortunately, some groups are so opposed to the use of animals in this essential research that they set fire to research facilities or break into laboratories to steal animals and destroy equipment, records and research data. The real price of these types of crimes are paid by all those who are waiting for cures and treatments for their afflictions. Research into Alzheimer's disease, cancer, AIDS, substance addiction and mental health were at stake here. Public interest in animal welfare should be encouraged. Research utilizing laboratory animals has led to many of medical history's most significant breakthroughs. These animals are used only when necessary and should be housed, handled and treated humanely. Those who disagree with the responsible use of animals in research do not have the right to take the law into their own hands. While a few States have already enacted laws increasing penalties for crimes against research facilities, I felt it was necessary to establish protections on the Federal level. Tuskegee In 1862, the U.S. Congress passed the first Morrill Act which provided for the establishment of land-grant institutions in the Southern and border States. These institutions were designed to educate citizens in the field of agriculture, home economics, the mechanic arts and other practical skills. Since the Southern States were uncooperative in funding historically African-American institutions under this law, Congress passed a second Morrill Act in 1890, creating the 1890 land-grant institutions. Alabama has two 1890 land-grant institutions, the Tuskegee Institute and Alabama A&M. Tuskegee was created by an act of the Alabama Legislature and granted land by the U.S. Congress. Although the 1890 institutions were chartered more than 100 years ago, a stream of ``hard'' money for research was not created until fiscal year 1967. The Tuskegee Institute was not officially a land- grant college, but in 1980, I was able to have the Tuskegee Institute added to the permanent list of 1890 institutions and ensure there would be a continuous stream of Federal research funds. Further, Congress created the Chappie James Center at Tuskegee with the 1890 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and it ensured funding for each of these institutions with the 1981 farm bill. Auburn I have worked closely with Alabama's 1862 land-grant institution, Auburn University, over the years and the 104th Congress was no exception. I was especially successful in completing, or continuing, funding for several very important research initiatives through the college of agriculture and the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture. Funding for the completion of the new poultry science facility at Auburn was achieved in the fiscal year 1997 agriculture appropriations bill. This $12 million facility will provide a state of the art facility for essential research into one of the most important agriculture sectors in Alabama, the poultry industry. I was also successful in securing funds for continued water quality research conducted at the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station. The research involves a team effort by scientists at Auburn and other land- grant universities, the CSREES, the TVA, State and private agencies, and most importantly, the producers. New technology is implemented immediately, which enhances the development and growth of agricultural industries. The water quality research also addresses problems that confront rural development and the sustainability of agricultural enterprises. Most importantly, though, this research is responsible for developing and implementing water and crop management practices that both enhance agriculture production and protect and preserve an important natural resource--water. One specific example of this is the irrigation project being conducted at the experiment substation in Bell Mina, AL. Increased demand for irrigation water in the southwestern United States is causing increased stress on many streams where farmers are pumping directly from the stream. As a possible method to decrease this demand during periods of low stream flow and to make more water available for irrigation, a study was initiated to evaluate the feasibility of pumping during high stream flows to off-stream storage sites. These sites could be on-farm or farmer-shared reservoirs. The irrigation reservoir at Bell Mina has been completed and the early results appear promising. The National Soil Dynamics Laboratory at Auburn conducts research designed to solve soil management problems. Developing effective methods of managing soil to maintain its quality, and to improve the quality and productivity of degraded soil, requires a multidisciplinary program. One component of this research being conducted at the soil laboratory is the agronomic portion. House appropriators eliminated funding for this component in their agriculture appropriations bill. Fortunately, I was able to have this funding restored in the Senate bill. The agronomic portion of the multidisciplinary program at the soil lab is vital because it is the very portion that facilitates the technology transfer from the lab to the field.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. It has sort of been a historical sine die session. This being my last few moments in the Senate, I though I would be here and watch this historic event. Thank you.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am deeply humbled to hear the kind words of the distinguished gentleman from Virginia--and he is truly a gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate them very deeply. My mind goes back, as I think about our friendship, to the early days when we both came to the Senate. On one snowy day in which there were 24 inches of snow on the ground, the scheduled speaker for the reading of George Washington's Farewell Address was Senator John Warner of Virginia. In order to be here, he had to walk some 2 miles in the snow to get here. I was the Presiding Officer of the Senate on that occasion. I got a ride in a jeep and came about a mile. But Senator Warner walked all of that way. Since that time I have been following in his footsteps. He has trod through many minefields, and he has always come out with a great sense of feeling for his fellow man and for his State of Virginia. So I appreciate very deeply his remarks. I know that he is going to have a long career here in the Senate. I hope that when he does leave, there will be another Senator who will speak words pertaining to agriculture concerning him because he has been a true champion of agriculture and a true champion of Virginia peanut farmers, too. So I deeply appreciate everything that he said, and I will look forward to many days in the future of having some sort of way of having a connection with him.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, to all of them and to all of those who have served in the past and moved on to retirement, K Street, or some other career, I extend a hearty thanks for a job well-done. Exhibit 1 senator howell heflin's alabama and washington staff (Including Hometowns and Date of Joining Office) Denise Addison, data entry clerk, Washington, DC, Jan. 1986. Ann Berry, office manager, Birmingham, AL, April 1979. Cappie Brooks, secretary, Birmingham, AL, March 1989. Tim Brown, state director, Enterprise, AL, Feb. 1985. Allen ``Beau'' Greenwood, legislative assistant, Corpus Christi, TX, February 1995. Joyce Hackworth, case worker, Birmingham, AL, January 1979. Thad Huguley, legislative assistant, Lanett, AL, August 1992. Lea Hurt, communications director, Decatur, AL, July 1991. Brenda Jarvis, state representative, Montgomery, AL, December 1990. Jan Johnson, state representative, Tuscumbia, AL, January 1979. Jeanne Jones, staff assistant, Mobile, AL, September 1982. Betty Lanier, secretary, Midway, AL, April 1986. Alan Leeth, legislative assistant/counsel, Opelika, AL, December, 1995. Winston Lett, Judiciary subcommittee minority chief counsel, Opelika, AL, October 1989. Mansel Long, legislative director, Tuscumbia, AL, February 1979. Judy Lovell, production manager, Bowie, MD, August 1987. Kristi Mashon, archivist, Austin, TX, June 1995. Kimberly McDonald, caseworker, Gaithersburg, MD, November 1991. Tom McMahon, press secretary, Montgomery, AL, February 1989. Jackie Natter, legislative assistant, Birmingham, AL, November 1994. Barry Phelps, speechwriter/ legislative assistant, Birmingham, AL October 1990. Steve Raby, administrative assistant, Harvest, AL, January 1984. Rob Schultz, legislative aide, Allentown, PA, June 1996. Barbara Sherrill, secretary, Sheffield, AL, November 1985. Samantha Smith, scheduler, Florence, AL, August 1993. Mary Spies, personal secretary, Washington, DC, January 1979. Yolanda Turner, mail clerk, Suitland, MD, August 1992. Stanley Vines, state representative, Birmingham, AL, April 1984. Heidi Wagner, staff assistant, Mobile, AL, July 1995. Sally Walburn, receptionist, Tuscaloosa, AL, June 1996. Connie Weavil, receptionist, Winston-Salem, NC, June 1995. Jim Whiddon, judiciary subcommittee minority counsel, Montgomery, AL, November 1993. Janetta Whit-Mitchell, state representative, Mobile, AL, August 1989. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there has been a lot of tributary praise on the floor of the Senate in the last few days. We have heard praise for Members, praise for spouses, and praise for the Senate itself. We have also heard a great deal of praise for staff members, and I want to add to that by taking a moment to say thanks to the many staff members I have worked with over the years. It is easy to take staff for granted. Much of what they do is carried out in such a way that we might not be aware always of what they are doing. But they put in long hours just like Senators do. They are dedicated not only to us, but to the States we serve. My staff has helped thousands of Alabamians and other citizens with problems ranging from lost Workmans' Compensation benefits to delayed retirement checks to securing visas for overseas travel at the last minute. I have been fortunate to have many long-time staff members who have been with me for many years, some since my first year in the Senate. Others have not been here as long, but have still made valuable contributions. Most have come from Alabama or had some connection to the State, such as being an alumnus of a university or college there, but others have come from the Washington area and other parts of the east coast. I am proud of my staff, both here in Washington and in my four State offices. They have done an outstanding job for the Senate, for the State of Alabama, and for the Nation. Rather than name any one of them individually, at this time I ask unanimous consent that a list of my current staff with their hometowns and date of joining the office be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as America heads into the next century and millennium, it is crucial that a serious reevaluation of our role in the world occur. Our role in the world will largely be dictated, at least for the foreseeable future, by the fact that our Nation is the sole remaining superpower. This role carries with it added responsibilities with regard to international and even more localized foreign disputes. In reevaluating our role as the sole superpower, there are some restraining factors that must be part of the equation. The lessons of Vietnam, Korea, and Beirut, as they relate to public support, cannot be dismissed. We have to consider the attitudes of the population in this country if we are to pursue action in places like Bosnia. A key question is how many human casualties the public will tolerate. Will the public support the mission and to what degree will it be supported? The media is a key element, since it has a tremendous capacity for creating sentiment for or against a particular policy. Our role might increasingly be ad hoc in nature. Public attitudes are a potential internal threat that can't be dismissed. There is a strong feeling that America cannot be the world's policeman. There is a vocal sentiment of limited quasi-isolationism among many that can't be dismissed, and it has the potential to grow. The question of how best to manage this sentiment is important to the conduct of our foreign policy and in assessing our role in the world. Scarce and limited resources on the part of our national government will also be a major determinant of our foreign policy. We are living in a world of shrinking government action. Both major political parties acknowledge this reality. It is a reality based upon budgetary constraints and a desire for less government, and dictated to some degree by the competition between domestic and foreign policy needs. We have already seen over the last few years a tendency on the part of our allies to look to us for leadership and to put out fires. Our leadership of the NATO operations in Bosnia is a stark example. In this war-torn region, we have seen not only armed battles, but rape, torture, murder, and genocide. As a society which stands against such evils, we will be called upon to intervene. Budgetary constraints will continue to require a reevaluation of our role as a world policeman and as the rewarding arbiter of international disputes in places like the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and other areas. A key part of the reevaluation of our role as a solver of conflicts will also be the reevaluation of our role in world disarmament as well as an arms merchant. As we rightfully pursue disarmament and restraints on the sale of arms, we must strive to retain a sensible balance and not go too far. A root cause analysis will serve us well; it is obvious that not much serious fighting takes place between two parties if there are no arms. Our own security, in the light of more ambiguous threats and potential terrorism, will continue to be paramount. Military technology and the feasibility and need of such programs as SDI will continue to demand attention. These questions will not recede just because the direct threat from a competing superpower has receded. We must not only look at our role in securing human rights around the world, but also to the commercial and business opportunities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as well as in the former Warsaw Pact nations. Our international trade policies are important components of such development. As far as our trade policy and how it affects our own citizens, we must carefully look at our trade deficits and how they will affect America's jobs if not reduced. There should be little doubt that many of our traditional jobs are going overseas or across borders. While new service jobs are being created, there is the increasing danger of a growing gap between the wealthy and, on the other hand, the economically disadvantaged and poor and a narrowing of the middle class. There is no question that Japan has emerged as a world economic power because of its successful trade policies. It is no secret that one learns from the successful. So far, we have not learned from Japan or come close to duplicating their success. What can be learned from them in making our own policies more beneficial to our national interests is an important question. One key component of their successful policy is that the corporate sector does not view the government as the enemy. Another challenge will be the role of NATO in European security and outside Europe. It is currently being seriously reevaluated. The alliance's expansion by the end of the century appears to be a foregone conclusion. What will the exact mission of an expanded NATO be in the next century? In order to avoid some of the problems experienced by the United Nations, particularly in the ``peacekeeping'' realm, its mission will have to be reevaluated meticulously, defined precisely, and articulated forcefully. The Pacific Rim, a rapidly expanding area of trade, development, and expansion, is also one of potential security threats. The lessons of China's influence in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts must not be forgotten. Possible East Asian alliances, as well as our understanding of East Asian motivations, are puzzling and wrought with dangers. Considerable thought, patience, and insight must be given to security threats and trade relationships. The issue of whether NATO could or should be used outside Europe--even if the consent of the member nations were obtained--will be paramount. The role of the United Nations is a major component of this issue, particularly in view of China's veto in the U.N. Security Council. We know the future will continue to yield technological advances that we have not even thought of today. This is true both in terms of domestic and international policy. A renewed commitment to research and development will be crucial in keeping pace with the rest of the world. Think about the Internet and how it has already changed the ways in which we receive, transmit, and exchange news and information. This will only increase in the next century. Our space program has yielded some of the greatest benefits our nation has ever realized. Its bi- products have helped lead to advances in health care techniques. We must commit ourselves anew to NASA and its mission. We must help citizens see the direct links between advanced science and research and their relevance to their daily lives. How many unforeseen research triumphs are waiting to be realized in the next century? Here at home, the delivery of health care is still a great concern to many of our citizens. As the National Institutes of Health and other government and private entities continue to increase the average life span of our population, the demand for health care services will only increase. The costs will rise. Access will continue to be an issue. We must evaluate these strains on the system and whether or not we will be able to meet the needs of a rapidly growing portion of the population that cannot partially or entirely meet the cost. There is still a consensus that reform is needed; still, after all the debate and controversy, we don't yet know what policy to pursue. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill is a good first step, but only a first step. The rising costs of higher education must be reevaluated. As college- level study and training become increasingly necessary to succeed in today's and tomorrow's complex world, what can be done about the rising cost? A huge percentage of a family's income goes toward educating its children, even at public institutions. How much can families realistically afford before talented, bright young people start falling through the cracks? Will it be the responsibility of the government to provide a safety net? How will government assistance programs have to be changed to meet increased demand? Our success at meeting these many challenges and the many others that face us depends upon how serious we are in our evaluation of them. Perhaps as much as any time in history, our future success will depend on how hard we work, how thoughtful we analyze these challenges, and how serious we are in building partnerships for moving the country forward.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, during my 18 years as a U.S. Senator, legislation of all sorts and in all issue areas has come before this body. Of course there were some issues I came to know best, sometimes because of the nature of my constituency, as was the case with agriculture and technology issues. But there are other topics the Senate addressed during this time which stand out in my mind for different reasons, such as judiciary and legal issues and national defense policy. Naturally, since I have a background in the law, I have a greater personal interest here than I do some other areas. But, of all the judicial work the Senate has tackled during my 18 years, its accomplishments in the area of general civil rights strike me as among its most commendable. Since 1979, congressional action in the field of civil rights has been enormously significant. I think it would be appropriate to highlight some of these issues and events. Of all the bills relating to civil rights, perhaps first in my mind is the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which passed during my first term. The fair housing bill, which enforced the provisions of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, also stands out. Another was the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991, which ensured that discrimination would not be tolerated in the workplace. But there were others, including the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday and Holiday Commission bills, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, the reauthorization of the Civil Rights Commission, and the Congress' efforts to save the Legal Services Corporation from the Reagan administration's cuts. When the Congress considered each of these bills, Members on both sides took positions reflecting very different philosophies. But I believe that the need to reconcile various points of view is the essence of progress in civil rights. For this reason, I am extremely proud of the Senate for working out the necessary accords to pass these bills. In addition to these specific bills, I am also very proud of the Senate for its advice and consent role in nominations for the Federal Judiciary and executive positions that affected the civil rights movement. During the time since my election, the Senate ensured the continued transition of the South from the 1950's into the next century. Many ills had yet to be addressed, and the Senate confirmed a number of individuals who will fight to resolve these ills and voted down some who might have furthered them. In 1980, the Senate confirmed the first black district judges in Alabama. The Congress also worked to preserve the legacy of several judges from Alabama who had accomplished much in the area of civil rights, including Justice Hugo Black, Judge Frank Johnson, and Judge Robert Vance. All of these men furthered the cause of racial progress. When it came to nominations, I would also like to note that the Senate occasionally felt it had to oppose some nominees, because it feared that these individuals might impinge on the enforcement of laws to protect individual rights. These nominees included some Federal judicial nominees as well as executive officials. But in each case, I did my best to remain open-minded until all of the facts were available and the arguments had been made. I might best compare my view of a Senator's role in the confirmation process to that of a judge rather than an advocate. When it came to some of these bills and nominations, it happened that my own personal perspective and conscience compelled me to vote differently than some of my constituents might have liked. This was particularly true in some instances, including my very painful decision to oppose the special treatment extension of the insignia patent for the Daughters of the American Confederacy, which I will discuss later. My goal here is to reflect upon some of the major legislation, nominations, and issues which have dominated the Senate's civil rights debate since I have been here. Grove City College Civil Rights Restoration Bill In 1984, I supported the passage of a bill known as Grove City. Formally known as the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, it did not pass until 1988. With this bill, the Congress essentially sought to restore civil rights guaranteed under several major laws restricted by the Supreme Court. It had a number of opponents among the religious community, especially, since abortion became a major controversy surrounding the bill. In fact, the Congress ultimately needed to override a veto to pass the bill. Grove City took its name from a February 28, 1984, Supreme Court decision, Grove City College versus Bell. With this ruling, the Court altered the interpretation of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It found that this law, which prohibited sex discrimination in federally funded institutions, applied only to the particular program or activity directly receiving the funds. Therefore, the entire school was not bound by the antidiscrimination language. Perhaps the reason the Grove City case was so significant was its potential impact on three other civil rights laws. These laws were the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, all of which used practically the same language. The Court had clearly abridged the Government's rights and abilities to fight discrimination. According to its stated purpose, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 sought to restore the ``broad, institution-wide application'' of Federal antidiscrimination laws. It pertained to each of the four civil rights laws, and like its previous incarnations, it sought to redefine ``program or activity.'' In 1988, Grove City became Public Law 100-259. But I wasn't necessarily pleased that the fight had been so hard. I had tremendous political pressure on me to oppose it. Immediately after I voted for the override, the vote was referred to as ``another nail in my coffin.'' To put these thoughts in context, I received over 6,000 contacts, including phone calls or letters from constituents who criticized me for supporting the bill. But I think that it was worth the fight. After its passage, the National Black Law Journal characterized the bill in these terms: The passage of S. 557 sends a clear signal: discrimination is illegal and will be prohibited through broad enforcement of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Consequently, the enactment of S. 557 closes a major loophole in our civil rights laws and preserves two decades of hard-won civil rights for all Americans. The Fair Housing Bill Since my first year as a Senator in 1979, civil rights activists had been pushing the Congress for legislation to amend the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and I supported their efforts. However, a broad bill intended to enforce the provisions of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 did not pass the Congress until 1988. My efforts in that first Congress included attaching a provision to the bill to allow discrimination complaints to be heard by HUD administrative law judges. A compromise version of this idea appeared in the final 1988 law. In 1979, several national surveys spurred a House subcommittee to pass a fair housing bill. HUD Secretary Harris testified that it was necessary to improve the 1968 act. The act, she said, ``. . . defined and prohibited discriminatory housing practices but failed to include the enforcement tools necessary to prevent such practices and provide relief to victims of discrimination.'' A companion bill appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the summer of the next year, 1980. During its markups, the committee adopted several of my amendments. One would allow HUD discrimination suits to be heard by administrative law judges. These judges would be appointed by a Fair Housing Review Commission authorized by the bill, and the President would appoint the commissioners. The Fair Housing Review Commission would have the authority to review and modify cases. The second of my amendments would limit suits to individuals who actually sought fair housing and who felt they had been victims of discrimination. By this time, the House had passed its version. Its supporters included the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the League of Women Voters, and the ACLU. President Carter was also among this group, calling the bill ``the most critical civil rights legislation before the Congress in years.'' It was the House bill which ultimately came to the Senate floor. It had less luck in the Senate than the House, though; certain Senators led a filibuster which killed the bill. Disagreement on the bill focused on two controversies, whether discrimination should be proven by results or intent, and whether cases should be heard by administrative law judges or Federal judges and juries. Civil rights groups supported provisions requiring the results standard of proof; Senate opponents wanted proof of intent. But there did not seem to be any middle ground. With regard to the administrative law judge provisions, Senator DeConcini, offered a compromise to allow jury trials in some cases, but opponents were not receptive. This compromise just raised too many questions. Unfortunately, we could not compromise that year, and the bill ultimately died in a filibuster. In 1988, we finally passed a broad bill, H.R. 1158, to address the problem of racial and other discrimination in housing. This bill became Public Law 100-430, to amend the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The new law authorized HUD to penalize those who discriminated in housing sales and rentals. In addition to prohibitions on discrimination according to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin specified by the 1968 act, the new law included protections for the handicapped and families with young children. According to Congressional Quarterly, this was the first time the Congress protected these latter categories under its laws. Before the passage of this new law, HUD only possessed the authority to mediate battles. The Justice Department could file suits in the case of discriminatory patterns, and individuals could bring their own suits. But this bill authorized HUD to pursue suits on a victim's behalf. The final law included a compromise version of my administrative law judge scheme of the 96th Congress. It provided for cases filed by HUD to be heard in front of administrative law judges, if the parties involved chose to do so. Where compromise failed in 1980, however, the 1988 law also provided a second option: if just one of the parties chose it, the case would be heard in a jury trial. The law required the parties to choose within 20 days. Voting Rights Extension In 1982, the Congress passed a law to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965--H.R. 3112, Public Law 97-205. This new law contained four essential parts. First, it extended section 5 of the act, the major enforcement provision, for 25 years. This section, called the preclearance provision, required 9 States, including my own Alabama, and parts of 13 others to receive approval from the Department of Justice before they could change their election laws. Second, it allowed States that could prove a good voting rights record for the previous 10 years to bail out of the preclearance section after 1984. Beginning that year, States desiring to bail out would have to prove their case before a Federal panel of three judges in Washington, DC. Third, the extension amended the permanent provisions of the 1965 act under section 2 to make it easier to prove violations. Previously, intent to discriminate had to be proven, but under the new law, it would only be necessary to prove that laws had resulted in discrimination. Last, the new law also extended bilingual requirements under the act for 10 years. But passing this bill was not easy. It had opponents in the Senate and in the administration. In fact, the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee was not friendly to its passage. Compromise was required to save the bill, and I worked behind the scenes, especially with Senator Dole, to find a proposal which would be acceptable to the committee. Congressional Quarterly has since noted that Senator Dole and I played deciding roles on the Senate judiciary committee. As the bill came out of subcommittee, the publication noted that divisions on the full committee left us ``* * * holding the balance of power.'' Seven members were publicly against the bill, and nine were for it. The committee had 18 members at the time, and a tie of nine to nine would have resulted in a failure to report the bill to the full Senate. I had an agreement with Senator Dole to work together to forge a compromise which would get committee approval, but not to publicize my behind-the-scenes activity. The reason for my reluctance to receive any credit was due to the fact that this was an unpopular bill with white voters in Alabama, particularly in Mobile. Notably, Senator Denton, from Alabama, was also a member of the Judiciary Committee, but he opposed the bill. On June 22, the Talladega Daily Home printed an editorial contrasting our positions. ``The next time he comes before Alabama voters to be re-elected or retired,'' it read, ``U.S. Senator Howell Heflin may have a problem explaining satisfactorily his vote to extend the so-called voting rights act for another 25 years.'' About Denton, who opposed the bill, the editorial wrote he ``won't have the same problem.'' And on May 6, the Mobile Register printed an editorial which condemned the compromise, writing that it was no compromise at all; instead, the Register called it ``probably the most discriminatory legal garbage to ever hit Congress.'' This editorial called on me to lead a filibuster of the bill for Alabama and particularly Mobile. The Register wrote that, in light of Mobile versus Bolden, the Voting Rights Extension would allow any Federal judge to change local governments' election laws at a whim. As I mentioned earlier, section 2 of the 1982 extension made it easier to prove violations by requiring proof of results rather than intent. This revision would effectively overturn a 1980 Supreme Court decision, Mobile versus Bolden, upholding the intent requirements. It was this provision, known as the results test, which first snagged the bill in the Senate committee; the constitution subcommittee refused to incorporate the provision in its March mark-up. President Reagan's Attorney General told the panel that the administration was opposed to the new provisions. During this markup, the Senate subcommittee extended section 5, the enforcement provisions, for 10 years. But by contrast, the House version of the bill extended section 5 indefinitely. Again, the Attorney General supported the Senate subcommittee's move, testifying that the administration opposed a longer extension. Notably, in the month following this subcommittee vote, U.S. District Judge Virgil Pittman of Alabama issued an revised opinion on Mobile versus Bolden declaring that Mobile had discriminated against blacks based on the results test. This decision, based on results, bolstered the case of civil rights groups who supported the bill provisions under section 2. With these revisions, the bill then came to the full Senate committee, whose members began to align for or against the extension. As I mentioned above, nine members supported the House version and seven opposed it; leaving Dole and me in the middle to work out something the whole committee could accept. On May 4, the committee passed our compromise version of the bill, with only four Senators voting against it. This compromise included changes to section 2's results language to specify its meaning. Taken from a 1973 Supreme Court case, White versus Register, the final version declared that a violation could be proved: * * * ``if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation. The compromise also extended section 5 for 25 years, rather than 10, as the administration and some Senators wanted, or permanently, as the House wanted. Still in the way, however, was a filibuster to stop the bill. But the Senate voted it down. In the end, the Senate amended the House bill to align it with its own compromise. The House accepted the Senate amendments on June 23, by unanimous consent. The Martin Luther King Federal Holiday In my first month as a Senator, I became a joint sponsor of a bill to establish a Federal holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That bill, however, did not become law, and it was not until 1983 that we were able to establish the holiday. In 1983, I fully supported its passage-H.R. 3706; Public Law 98-144. During the 1983 debate, the measure became the victim of a filibuster led by Senator Jesse Helms. According to Congressional Quarterly, Senator Helms objected to King's ``action-oriented Marxism,'' and alleged that King had connections to the communist party. These claims seemed to me to be without merit. When the Senate began consideration of the holiday measure, I voted to end the filibuster, and I opposed amendments which would effectively have killed the bill. However, there were two amendments I found to be in line with my own thinking. They were offered by Senators Randolph and Boren to require that the King, Washington, and Columbus holidays be held on the actual dates of the events. In fact, I cosponsored Boren's amendment, and after that amendment failed, I signed onto a bill to serve the same purpose. My reasons for supporting this condition were the cost of a new holiday--the holidays would occasionally fall on Saturdays and Sundays, saving a great deal of expense--and I also wanted to ensure the proper observance of significant historical events. Dr. King's birthday is a significant date in the history of civil rights in this country, and it is most fitting to remember its actual date. The following year, Congress passed a bill establishing a Martin Luther King Holiday Commission to encourage ceremonies for the first celebration of the holiday--H.R. 5890; Public Law 98-399. The bill mandated a 3-member panel to be funded by donations. Five years later, I cosponsored a bill to make the Martin Luther King commission permanent. The bill became law--(H.R. 1385, Public Law 101- 30,--and it expanded the commission's role to include the promotion of racial equality and nonviolent social change. Again, when this bill came to the Senate floor, a number of amendments effectively to kill it were offered, and I opposed them all. However, I did support an amendment to bar the Commission from encouraging civil disobedience. I joined Senator Sarbanes as a sponsor in support of four different bills, S. 322 in the 100th Congress, S. 619 in the 101st Congress, S. 239 in the 102d Congress, and S. 27 in the 103d Congress, to set aside a piece of Federal land in the District of Columbia for the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to build a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. However, these bills did not pass. Funding for Historically Black Colleges I am especially proud of my efforts to authorize funding for the 1890 land grant colleges, including the Tuskegee Institute--now Tuskegee University--and Alabama A&M in my home State of Alabama. Even though these land grant colleges date to the 19th century, they had been largely ignored until the late 1970's. I consider that this fact represents a great waste; certainly these institutions deserve equal treatment, and I believe they are, properly funded, a valuable asset to the Nation in the field of agricultural research. First, I would like to give a brief history of the African-American, 1890 land-grant colleges. In 1862, the U.S. Congress passed the first Morrill Act, which established the basis for land-grant colleges. These would be established by the States to educate their citizens in agriculture, home economics, and other practical subjects. However, the Southern States did not provide funding for black colleges under this law, so the Congress passed a second Morrill Act in 1890 specifically to support the African-American institutions. From this history comes the term ``1890 Land-Grant Institutions,'' specifically applied to these historically African-American colleges. However, the agriculture department did not begin earnestly to fund the 1890 land-grant colleges until 1966. That year, Assistant Secretary Dr. George Mehren asked the National Academy of Sciences to suggest an allocation of $283,000 for research at these colleges--under Public Law 89-106. In 1866, Lincoln University in Missouri became the first such historically black land-grant college.'' By 1976, there were 16 such universities. Of these 16, there are 2 in Alabama, the Tuskegee University and Alabama A&M University. The Alabama State Legislature created the Tuskegee Institute in 1881; it was then called The Tuskegee State Normal School for the Training of Negro Teachers. Booker T. Washington became Tuskegee's first President and served until he died in 1915. During these first years, the State legislature appropriated $3,000 for the institution and authorized it a single teacher. The school remained public until the State legislature granted its board the power of governance in 1893, but Tuskegee Institute continued to receive State funds even though they obtained private status. In 1897, the legislature also established ``The Tuskegee State Experiment Station.'' George Washington Carver became its director and served until his death in 1943. In 1899, the U.S. Congress granted the school 25,000 acres, and in 1906, it established the formal extension program. In 1933, Tuskegee became a regionally accredited 4-year college, and in 1943 it opened its graduate schools. Accredited graduate programs now include architecture, chemistry, dietetics, engineering, nursing, and veterinary science. Tuskegee's funding from grants remained nominal until 1972. Alabama A&M University was founded in 1875 by an ex-slave named William Hooper Councill. Originally, the Huntsville Normal School was on West Clinton Street in Huntsville, the school moved to Normal in 1890. After a decrease in enrollment, the institution was renamed in 1919 the State Agricultural and Mechanical Institute for Negroes and reduced to junior-level training. During the subsequent years, the school lost its financial support and nearly fell apart, but in 1927 Dr. J.F. Drake became its new president and oversaw expansion of the grounds and the return to 4-year status. It was not until 1962, during the tenure of President Dr. Richard D. Morrison, that the school became a university, with its own graduate school. With this history of great difficulty as well as great leadership in mind, I hold myself honored to have worked with these institutions. I am particularly proud of efforts to create the Chappie James Preventive Health Center at the Tuskegee Institute, and to pass perhaps the first serious funding authorization for the 1890 black land grant colleges. During the first summer I was a Senator, I introduced a resolution to authorize the construction of the General Daniel ``Chappie'' James Memorial Center for Preventive Health at the Tuskegee Institute. When I introduced the bill on the Senate floor, I noted that it was the first preventative health center in the south, maybe the country. I also stated, proudly, that it would become a museum of the general's memorabilia. Furthermore, I argued that the dedication was especially fitting because General James, the first African-American to rise to a four- star rank in the U.S. Air Force, had been a beneficiary of Tuskegee's programs years before. Tuskegee established the first training program for black pilots, and it was here that General James learned the skills which furthered his career. Ultimately, we succeeded in passing the Chappie James Center bill as a rider to the 1980 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965. My amendment authorized $6 million for the center, and required that it be constructed at the Tuskegee Institute. In May 1981, I introduced a bill to help all of the 1890 land grant colleges. Its language specified that the 1890 land grant colleges receive money for the purchase of equipment and land, and the planning, construction, alteration, or renovation of buildings to strengthen their capacity for research in the sciences of food and agriculture. That year, the House passed an identical companion bill unanimously. As I have said many times, the 1890 schools had not, to that point, had the authorization to receive the benefit of the equipment and facilities they needed to be competitive. They had nothing from Congress to rely on, even though the Congress gave these historically black institutions the same mission as the 1862 schools mandated under the Morrill Act. Therefore, we owed them the means to fulfill that mission, research and development in the field of agriculture for the benefit of the whole country. As with the Chappie James measure, this authorization passed as a rider, this time to the 1981 farm bill, Public Law 97-98). This amendment authorized $10 million annually to each of the historically black land-grant colleges through 1986--a total of $50 million for each. Black Alabamians Become Federal Judges In the spring of 1979, then-Senator Donald Stewart and I set out to find five U.S. district judges to fill vacancies in the State of Alabama. In order to do this, we formed two committees and clarified our intentions in charters for each. We called the first the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission of Alabama, and we called the second the Alabama Women and Minority Group Search Committee. First, we intended to seek out the most qualified individuals in the State. This was the charge of the first committee. But we also sought to find qualified minorities to fill the slots. This task was the charge of the second panel, which would advise the first. Through these efforts, two blacks were selected, and President Carter formally nominated them both. These men were U.W. Clemon, for Alabama's northern Federal district, headquartered in Birmingham, and Fred Gray, for the State's middle Federal district, headquartered in Montgomery. U.W. Clemon had become a prominent Alabama State senator, and Fred Gray was a prominent lawyer who had served in many posts. He was perhaps most widely known as Rosa Parks' lawyer. Although the hearings were not easy, the Senate confirmed U.W. Clemon the next year, and he became the first African-American Federal judge in Alabama. Fred Gray's nomination, however, did not survive the confirmation process. In his place, I recommended Myron Thompson, another black, who was confirmed. As I said many times during this process, I believe that it is absolutely essential for blacks to serve in Federal courts. In the committee hearings on our recommended nominees, and on the floor after their confirmation, I stated that I believe we must make up for years of injustice in this country. For many long years, blacks were excluded from the Federal judicial nominating process. True equality under the law cannot be achieved under such a system. All Americans must feel they will be treated fairly by the Federal courts, but if certain citizens are precluded from serving on the bench, the courts cannot give the perception of fairness. Civil Rights Commission Extension In 1983, authorization of the Commission on Civil Rights expired, and the Congress set about passing a reauthorization. However, President Reagan intruded, and he tried to restructure the commission for his own purposes. In late May, Reagan announced he would replace three commissioners on the panel--Mary Frances Berry, Bladina Cardenas Ramirez, and Rabbi Murray Saltzman. According to Congressional Quarterly, the President sought to remove these commissioners because they had criticized his administration's policies. To replace them, the President announced that he would appoint Morris Abram, John Bunzel, and Robert Destro. Some alleged that Reagan selected these replacements because they opposed affirmative action and busing. President Reagan had clearly challenged the independence of the commission. And the Senate Judiciary Committee responded by putting off the votes on his new nominees. Ralph G. Neas, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, deserves much credit for lobbying against Reagan's position. In response, Reagan summarily fired the three commissioners he sought to replace. CQ wrote that a White House lobbyist admitted that Reagan fired these individuals because he could not get the votes for his own nominees. Both Houses of the Congress responded with concurrent resolutions declaring their intent to create a new commission whose members would be appointed by the Senate as well as the President. Dr. Berry and Ms. Ramierez went on to win a suit in the D.C. District Court which granted an injunction against Reagan's firings. For my own part, I worked to save Mary Berry's seat through a compromise which restructured the commission. During final action, the Senate accepted this compromise amendment, offered by Senator Specter, Public Law 98-183. Under this compromise, Reagan would have four appointees, and the Congress would have four, two for each house. The Commission would therefore have two additional members. The compromise, among other things, also established that the President had to show cause for firings, and authorized funding for the Commission. In response to this last, the House restored funds it had cut from the appropriations bill. But in the end, civil rights groups were angry to learn that Reagan had backed off on an informal part of the compromise. He had promised, they said, to reappoint two commissioners he had previously opposed, Louise Smith and Jill Ruckelshaus. Reagan, House Majority Leader Michel, and Senate Majority Leader Baker, ultimately refused to put these commissioners on the panel. Much to my own pleasure, though, the Congress saved Mary Berry's seat. She is now the chairman of the Commission. Opposition to Various Nominees Affecting Civil Rights As I stated before, I feel that the Senate's opposition to a number of nominees was as important as any of its other accomplishments. In the South, some changes for the good occurred, and the Senate's work helped achieve successes in the area of civil rights. It voted down some individuals because of reasonable doubts concerning their impartiality in carrying out the duties of the office for which they were being nominated. These men included William Bradford Reynolds, Judge Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, William C. Lucas, and Jefferson Sessions. With regard to these nominations, my opposition was based on doubts-- doubts about qualifications and about their impartiality as to racial and civil rights matters. However, I always tried to maintain my sense of objectivity. I always tried to keep an open mind until the end of hearings, because I believe hearings are meaningless if Senators do not examine the facts impartially, if they enter into the proceedings with prejudice. In fact, I have consistently articulated this view in my opening statements: We, as Senators, need to act as judges in the confirmation process. I was often criticized as being indecisive because I withheld my decision until the end of committee consideration. But, if I was to be fair to the nominee, then I had to assume a judge's role. William Bradford Reynolds' Nomination In 1985, President Reagan nominated William Bradford Reynolds to become Associate Attorney General. This position, No. 3 in the Justice Department's hierarchy, carried with it the responsibility for all Federal civil matters. Previously, Reynolds had been the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, and his record there earned him opponents among the civil rights community. In fact, I based my own decision to oppose Reynolds on what I knew of his record. Examples of Reynolds' opponents included Benjamin Hooks, executive director of the NAACP; W. Gordon Graham, of the Birmingham city government, who spoke for himself and Mayor Richard Arrington; William L. Taylor, director of the National Center for Policy Review; Judy Goldsmith, president of the National Organization for Women; and Marie Foster from Selma, who was involved in the civil rights movement in that city during the 1960's. These individuals all testified very critically on Reynolds' record, and they all told the committee that he had worked to set back civil rights. On June 27, 1985, we voted the nomination down in the judiciary committee, and it did not go to the floor. My vote decided the outcome. On June 30, the Huntsville Times reported that this final meeting and these votes involved ``plenty of gavel-banging and shouting as red- faced senators fought bitterly over President Reagan's nomination for a top Justice Department post.'' I waited until that time to cast my vote, but when I did, I said that I wasn't even certain I felt comfortable with Reynolds in the position in which he was serving at the time. I also said I would find out if the Senate could remove him. In my view, he was deceptive, lacking in forthrightness, evasive, and misleading during his testimony. Robert Bork's Nomination Another individual I ultimately decided to vote against was Judge Robert Bork, nominated to become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I was somewhat disconcerted by comments he had made, particularly with regard to rights guaranteed by the constitution-- rights he said he did not see, but which had been seen by the courts and Congress on numerous occasions. Most important, though, in the end, I did not feel confident I knew what Judge Bork would do on the Supreme Court. Since the nomination was for life, I just could not vote for Judge Bork. President Reagan nominated Judge Bork, who was, at the time, serving on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1987. Bork's advocates argued that he was a conservative judge who tended to defer to legislatures on political matters. But his opponents said that he was an activist, seeking to implement his own agenda. From this dispute, and others, the Senate entered into one of the most contentious confirmation debates of my tenure. Controversy developed because Bork had, in earlier statements and writings, criticized the constitutionality of a number of Supreme Court decisions affecting individual rights. He had argued for a restrictive interpretation of the 14th amendment with regard to sex. Bork had also criticized decisions which struck down laws because they impinged on individual privacy, a right Bork had argued was neither explicitly nor implicitly provided by the Constitution. The decisions he had cited included the striking of a Connecticut law which banned contraceptives, as well as the Roe versus Wade decision. Regardless of whether or not I agree with Roe versus Wade, I do believe in the right to privacy, and unlike Judge Bork, I do see it in the Constitution. Notably, Bork had also written that the first amendment applied only to political speech in a 1971 law review article. He followed this with a television statement in 1987 in which he said ``other kinds of speech, speech about moral issues, speech about moral values, religion and so forth--all of those things feed into the way we govern ourselves.'' During his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, we questioned Bork on his earlier statements and decisions. Several of us argued that Bork was trying to relax his image during these hearings. In fact, Senator Leahy called Bork's seemingly changing beliefs ``confirmation conversion.'' Uncertain of Bork's actual position, I cited Bork's ``confirmation protestations'' when I stated my final decision. I voted against the nominee in the Judiciary Committee, and I also voted against him in the full Senate. I gave statements before that committee and on the floor reciting many of the reasons for my opposition to his confirmation. The bottom line was that I just did not known how Bork would treat essential, fundamental rights in his rulings. The debate over Judge Bork, I might note, was a particularly unpleasant one. The media became so involved and the attempts to politicize the debate from both sides became so acidic, that I felt a particular need to speak on the floor about the potentially damaging effects on the judiciary. But, of course, this type of public intensity has surrounded other nominations since. A number of mailing and telephone campaigns increased this political nature of the debate. I was even told that my own voice, or an imitation, was used in a telephone solicitation I certainly did not authorize. The spill-over from the Bork nomination lingers to this day, and has affected other nominations since. Clarence Thomas' Nomination In October 1991, I voted against confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination. Although I reserved my judgment, as always, until the nominee had been given a chance to be heard, I came out against Clarence Thomas well before I knew of Anita Hill's allegations. I just did not feel that Clarence Thomas was qualified, at that time, to assume a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. I do support a moderately conservative court. But I oppose a right- wing court which would embrace a regressive philosophy, which would attempt to rewrite or strike laws written to overcome years of racism in America. I strongly feared that Clarence Thomas would advocate such right-wing positions. I also had reservations based on the contradictory nature of Thomas' statements on his fundamental view of the law. He had made a number of statements and written a number of articles before the hearings which the committee called on him to explain. His answers, however, did not satisfy me; they showed a man who had seemingly changed his essential perspective. At the time, I did not know what the real Clarence Thomas was like or what role he would play on the Supreme Court, if confirmed. In fact, I was very much concerned that Thomas' inconsistencies suggested either intentional deception or a lack of scholarly, considered thought. One example of my specific reservations was the nominee's apparent shift in his view of natural law. Thomas had criticized the ``nihilism of [Oliver Wendell] Holmes,'' who rejected natural law. However, before the committee, he rejected these earlier statements. He said he made them ``in the context of political theory,'' and described himself as a ``part-time political theorist.'' Thomas had also criticized the Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, KS, decision. And when questioned, Thomas said that he had never even discussed Roe versus Wade. I would not have opposed the nominee based on his position on this single case, whatever it may have been, but I found it extremely unlikely that Thomas had never discussed Roe versus Wade, a defining point in the laws of this country. In fact, I was not certain that he was being completely forthcoming, especially considering the polarizing nature of this particular case in Supreme Court confirmations. I was also deeply concerned about Thomas' advocacy for an activist Supreme Court which would strike down laws because they restrict property rights. Thomas advocated this position in a 1987 speech before the Pacific Research Institute, citing the libertarian Stephen Macedo. I believe, though, that modern constitutional jurisprudence has moved beyond the Lochner era which relied on natural law, and that individual rights are just as important as property rights, perhaps even more so. The Supreme Court has long recognized congressional authority to regulate commerce. As I stated, according to the libertarian view, we would have no laws to guarantee occupational safety and health, to preserve the environment, to protect consumers from unsafe food, to require airline safety, or to establish a minimum wage. All of these concerns led me to doubts. I simply could not justify voting for a nominee whose positions remained so enigmatic, particularly when he had been nominated to the Supreme Court for life. The peculiarities surrounding the nomination only increased after that time. In early October, the public became aware that Anita Hill, a former Thomas employee, had alleged that the nominee had made unwanted sexual advances and comments toward her over a number of years. I did not know if Thomas, or Hill, were telling the truth, or if neither was telling the complete truth. I had not known about these allegations until after I made my initial statement opposing Thomas. The afternoon after my speech, Chairman Biden informed me of the an FBI file which included the charges. I did vote against the committee motion to report the nomination favorably to the floor, which failed in a tie, although I supported sending it to the full Senate without a recommendation. But I had no reason, whatsoever, to change my position; Thomas' record, testimony, and lack of qualifications were reason enough to oppose his confirmation. Jefferson Sessions' Nomination On June 5, 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected President Reagan's nomination of Jefferson Sessions to become a Federal district judge in Alabama. There were ten Republicans and eight Democrats on the committee. The vote for disapproval of his nomination was 10 to 8, with two Republicans voting against him. Sessions was, at the time, a U.S. attorney in Alabama. Certain of my colleagues on the committee criticized comments Sessions allegedly made against various civil rights organizations as well as favorable comments made about the Ku Klux Klan. These comments, they argued, showed a ``gross insensitivity'' to racial matters. My decision to oppose Sessions was very difficult. Of course, he was from my home State of Alabama. Frankly, I just did not know whether he would be a fair and impartial judge. My statement before the committee recited that since this was a lifetime appointment, we should be very cautious about his fairness and impartiality. William C. Lucas' Nomination In 1989, I voted against William C. Lucas' nomination to become the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Lucas happened to be an African-American, and I do not believe I can state strongly enough my belief in the substantive and symbolic importance of nominating blacks to these positions. However, when I weighed the evidence, I found that Mr. Lucas simply was not qualified to head the Civil Rights Division. Lucas had worked in the Civil Rights Division in 1963, had been in the FBI, and he had been the Wayne County, MI--which includes Detroit-- sheriff and county executive before President Bush nominated him to this post. But he had only just begun to practice law, and he had never represented a client in court. Lucas' lack of legal experience showed during the hearings. Lucas downplayed the importance of recent Supreme Court decisions on civil rights laws, commenting ``I'm new to the law.'' And when the Chairman asked Lucas about his view on the recent trend in the Supreme Courts decisions on civil rights laws he said, ``I have to answer as a politician because I have not thought about the answer.'' Further, during the hearings, a number of civil rights activists testified or submitted statements to the effect that Lucas was not qualified to fill the position. While he emphasized that he did not object to Lucas' views, Ralph G. Neas, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights opposed Lucas on his ``lack of civil rights and legal experience.'' Elaine Jones, deputy director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, testified that, although her group initially wished to support Lucas, it found that he did ``not have the training and the background to litigate and understand the litigation process.'' Citing the need for experience in Federal litigation, Drew Days, a professor at Yale Law School and a former holder of the position Lucas would fill, said Lucas' confirmation would ``be a frustration of the mission that Congress envisioned when it created that office in 1957.'' William L. Taylor of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights testified for his group, noting his personal belief that Lucas did not meet the standards set by his organization. Arthur L. Johnson, president of the Detroit branch of the NAACP said, ``We do not believe that he [Lucas] is suitable for this highly specialized and important assignment where the public interest is so sharply focused, and where the trust of black Americans, and civil rights advocates in particular, should be sought and even enhanced.'' John H. Buchanan, Jr., of the People for the American Way also argued that Lucas was ``inadequately qualified.'' On the other hand, some civil rights leaders supported Lucas. Dr. Joe Reed of the Alabama Democratic Conference was one; Reed urged confirmation because, at the time, there had been only one African- American in the post. Another supporter was Alvin Holmes, the senior black member of the Alabama House of Representatives. These men both noted their belief that Lucas' opponents had based their views solely on qualifications. A final example of Lucas' supporters was Father William Cunningham, director of Focus HOPE of Detroit. Congressional Quarterly reported on certain questions surrounded Lucas' record, including brutality in the Wayne County sheriff's department, a customs dispute, and exaggerations on his resume. After hearing all of this information, I finally decided to vote against Mr. Lucas. I based my decision in large part on the importance of the position. The head of the Civil Rights Division perhaps has more responsibility than any other single individual for ensuring the security of our civil rights. The individual who assumes this role should be well qualified to deal with the intricacies of the law. Mr. Lucas, I believed, did not possess sufficient legal experience to undertake the task, and I cast the deciding vote against him. I argued that, although his supporters and Mr. Lucas himself cited his accomplishments in Wayne County, the controversy surrounding them, including brutality in the sheriff's department, indicated to me that his managerial abilities were also questionable. After the committee vote, Ralph Neas who had testified against Lucas, announced a success for civil rights. Kenneth L. Ryskamp's Nomination I cast the deciding vote against Kenneth L. Ryskamp of Florida, whom President Bush had nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This circuit covers Florida, Georgia, and my home State of Alabama. President Bush actually nominated Ryskamp twice. The first time was in 1990, and the Judiciary Committee tabled the nomination that year. Ryskamp had been criticized by People for the American Way, a civil liberties group which found that he had ruled against more civil rights plaintiffs than any other judge nationwide. He had also belonged to a country club which had an implicit policy of discrimination against African-Americans and Jews. Also haunting Ryskamp was a specific case in which a number of African-Americans in West Palm Beach, including those who had not been found guilty of any crime, filed a complaint because they had been attacked by city police dogs. Although the jury had found the city, individual police participants, and the former police chief guilty of civil rights violations, Ryskamp threw out the conviction against the city and the police chief. He said: ``It might not be inappropriate to carry around a few scars to remind you of your wrongdoing in the past, assuming the person has done wrong.'' Nine Latin American members of the Florida State Legislature wrote a letter to express their belief that Ryskamp had ``* * * demonstrated insufficient sensitivity to ethnic minorities and other groups who have traditionally been the objects of discrimination.'' In my opposition to Ryskamp, I weighed this information, and I concluded that, if the representatives of such a large population felt they would not receive justice, Ryskamp could not dispense it. With regard to this last point, I believe it is important to note that these lawmakers were Republicans, and they had no partisan motivation. Creation of the 11th Circuit As a past chairman and now ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee which oversees court reform and judicial administration, one of my great interests as a Senator has been that of improving and streamlining judicial procedure and process. In June of 1980, I introduced a bill to divide the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals into two courts. On October 1, the Congress passed, by voice vote in both chambers, the House version of the bill to divide the circuit. This bill became Public Law 96-452. At the time, this circuit included Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; this legislation broke off Georgia, Florida and Alabama to create the new 11th Circuit, and the others remained as the new fifth circuit. The split had been considered several times before, but that year, I introduced the legislation in response to a request made by the court's judges. This request came to me as a formal petition, signed by all twenty-four judges sitting on the court. Among these were Frank Johnson, Joseph Hatchett, the first African-American on the court, and Bob Vance. Judge Johnson became the court's spokesman for the split during hearings on the matter in the House of Representatives. The main purpose of the bill would be to promote judicial efficiency. Individual judges in the circuit were burdened by an excessively large caseload. Further, the entire court had accrued the largest ``en banc'' caseload in U.S. judicial history. In the past, civil rights groups had opposed the split because, given the location of the circuit, it heard the most important civil rights cases in the country. Therefore, these groups did not want to see a more conservative court created. In fact, during the House subcommittee hearings, Judge Johnson testified that he had been opposed to earlier incarnations of the proposal. He said, ``* * * the basis for my opposition was a firm belief that the proposal would have a substantial adverse effect on the disposition of cases in the fifth circuit that involved civil and constitutional rights.'' After a careful evaluation of the judges who would go to the different circuits, Judge Johnson changed his position to become the spokesman for the split. According to the circuit judges' proposal, this split was to be dissimilar to the earlier suggestions in two ways. It would not reduce the cases filed, nor would it create courts whose views differed from the present court's. With respect to these modifications, the petition read that the division could be accomplished ``* * * without any significant philosophical consequences within either of the proposed circuits.'' As a Congressman from Mississippi, Jon Hinson, pointed out during the hearings, the new courts would reflect a balance in their philosophy, at least as measured by the President who appointed the judges. Nine of the 14 judges on the fifth circuit were to be Carter's appointees, as were 7 of 12 on the 11th circuit. Other former opponents, including Judge Hatchett and U.W. Clemon, submitted letters to the subcommittee explaining why they had changed their views. Judge Hatchett noted that the new Fifth Circuit Court would have no African-American judges, a matter which had caused many objections. However, he wrote that this matter could be addressed later. ``While I understand the apprehension caused some persons by two `new courts,' I do not believe their fears are well founded,'' he wrote. ``The two courts that will emerge from this division will probably be no different from the existing fifth circuit.'' Judge U.W. Clemon wrote that, although he had opposed the 4 to 2 split, this new proposal ``will not adversely impact on civil rights.'' Clemon added that it would, in fact, speed the 2-year lag time in the filing of civil rights cases. The Frank Johnson Courthouse During my first year as a Senator, I strongly supported the nomination of Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., to become a U.S. circuit judge in what was then the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Johnson stands out as one of the most outstanding jurists of our times. I believe that Judge Johnson has done more in the field of civil rights than almost any other single judge. He wrote or took part in numerous historical decisions including those in matters of desegregation, voter registration, and reapportionment. He was also variously involved in cases which established new standards in mental health programs and prisoners' rights. Notably, in 1978, Johnson became the first Federal district judge to find that an African-American educational institution discriminated against whites in its hiring practices. At the time, I predicted that the Senate would not have the pleasure of confirming a better candidate for circuit judge in many years. To Judge Johnson's credit, I believe that my prediction has come true. To further honor this man, whose fairness and judicial temperament I deeply respect, at the suggestion of Dr. Joe Reed, I introduced a bill in the summer of 1991 to name the Federal courthouse in Montgomery the Frank M. Johnson U.S. Courthouse. This bill became Public Law 102-261. I felt that it was most appropriate to name this particular courthouse after Judge Johnson because it was there he began his career as a Federal judge. Judge Johnson's courtroom truly reflected the terms rule of law and equal protection of the law. And despite threats on his life, Judge Johnson at all times courageously upheld equal justice under the law. I can only hope that this courthouse will continue to symbolize Judge Johnson's work, and to be a temple of justice. The Hugo Black Courthouse In 1983, I introduced a resolution to designate February 27, 1986, Hugo LaFayette Black Day. This day marked the 100th anniversary of the late Supreme Court Justice's birth. The resolution became public law 98-69. Justice Black was born in Clay County, Alabama, and he was graduated with honors from the University of AL Law School. He was a practicing lawyer, a prosecuting attorney, and a police court judge in Birmingham, and he distinguished himself in all of these positions. He went on to become a Senator from Alabama, where, among other things, he sponsored the first minimum wage bill. In 1937, Hugo Black became Franklin D. Roosevelt's first nominee to the Supreme Court. Justice Black served there through six Presidents and five Chief Justices. I know that Justice Black was a great champion of civil rights who saw the law as a tool to improve everyone's condition. He had a strong work ethic and a delightful sense of humor, and he had a great sympathy for victims of injustice. Chief Justice Burger once said, ``He loved this Court as an institution, and contributed mightily to its work, to its strength, and to its future. He revered the Constitution: * * * But above all he believed in the people.'' In 1987, I also worked to pass a bill to name the new Federal courthouse in Birmingham for Hugo Black. This bill became Public Law 100-160. Former Congressman Ben Erdreich from my State of Alabama sponsored the bill in the House. The Bob Vance Courthouse In January 1990, I was deeply saddened by the murder of my very close friend, Bob Vance, who served on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Vance was murdered by a mail bomb which also seriously injured his wife, Helen Rainey Vance. I spoke on the floor to honor his memory, and his great accomplishments in civil rights; sadly, it seemed clear that his efforts to further the rights of all citizens motivated his murderer. I wanted, as best I could, to state, unequivocally, that he did not die in vain, that his work to ensure racial equality did not die with him. I wanted, very much, for everyone to know that Bob Vance was responsible, as much as any individual, for stopping racially motivated bombings like the one which killed him. We need more men like Judge Vance--men who have the courage to follow the moral imperatives of their conscience. A few months later, I worked to pass a bill which renamed the courthouse at 1800 5th Avenue in Birmingham the ``Robert S. Vance Federal Building and United States Courthouse''--Public Law 101-304. I hope that this stands as a testament to this great man's work to fight racism, and as a symbol of the work we have done as well as what we have yet to do. The Daughters of the American Confederacy Insignia Patent Earlier, I alluded to the United Daughters of the Confederacy insignia debate. Although I firmly believe that it was the right thing to do, I made one of my most difficult and unpopular decisions as a Senator in 1993 when I voted against the special treatment extension of the design patent for this group. My personal family history is profoundly connected to the Confederacy. My maternal grandfather was a signer of the Ordinance of Secession by which Alabama seceded from the Union, and my paternal grandfather was a surgeon in the Confederate Army. I also had several close relatives who were killed while serving in the Confederate Army. All of these family members were convinced that their cause was right. Honor was their chief motivation at the time, and these men believed that their honorable course was to defend their cause and homeland. I felt a tremendous amount of conflict as I thought about the issue. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, our only black Senator, eloquently argued against extending the patent. Her words made me consider, carefully, whether we in the Congress truly needed to extend a special recognition for this symbol of the past. After some considerable thought, I decided that honor is still a chief motivation. However, although I revered my ancestors, honor had taken a different meaning after one hundred and twenty-eight years, and I believe I did the right thing just as they did. In May 1993, Senator Moseley-Braun had convinced the Judiciary Committee to delete provisions of a bill which extended the design patent concerning the Daughters of the American Confederacy. She argued that she did not oppose the group's freedom to use whatever symbol it should chose, but instead she questioned the need for the Congress to endorse a Confederate symbol with the special protection when an extension could be obtained through the Office of Patents and Trademarks in the normal routine manner. However, the matter came before the full Senate two months later as a Helms amendment to a bill we were considering at the time. Senator Moseley-Braun again opposed the amendment, and she made some compelling arguments on the floor. She objected to a special Congressional honor since it would, she said, conversely dishonor her own ancestors. She explained: * * * the United Daughters of the Confederacy have every right to honor their ancestors and to choose the Confederate flag as their symbol if they like. However, those of us whose ancestors fought on a different side in the Civil War, or who were held, frankly, as human chattel under the Confederate flag, are duty bound to honor our ancestors as well by asking whether such recognition by the U.S. Senate is appropriate. I listened to this argument and considered it carefully. With a divided mind, I ultimately agreed with Senator Moseley-Braun. In its later report, Congressional Quarterly called my decision ``Perhaps the turning point in the debate,'' which, until that time, had gone against Senator Moseley-Braun. Our colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley referred to my decision in his engaging memoir ``Time Present, Time Past''. He wrote, ``Heflin, who through his actions as a lawyer and judge had long championed racial justice, rose and said, `I have many connections through my family to the Daughters of the Confederacy organization and the Children of the Confederacy, but the Senator from Illinois * * * is a descendant of those that suffered the ills of slavery.' I have a legislative director whose great-great grandfather was a slave. I said to my legislative director, `Well if I vote with Senator Moseley-Braun, my mother, grandmother, and other ancestors will turn over in their graves.' He said, `Well, likewise, my ancestors will turn over in their graves [if you vote against it].' '' I do not believe, nor did I believe then, that the Daughters of the American Confederacy is inherently racist nor that it takes part in racist activities. But I do believe that the U.S. Congress should not provide a special honor, as Senator Moseley-Braun argued, for a symbol that offends a large part of its constituency. In America, we have a long history of racial inequality to correct, and I believe much remains to be done. I also believe that, for substantive efforts to succeed, we must work symbolically as well. On July 23, the Huntsville News, the Selma Times-Journal, the Dothan Eagle, the Mobile Register, the Birmingham Post-Herald, the Opelika- Auburn News, the Montgomery Advertiser, and the Gadsden Times wrote that I had ``turned [my] back on [my] Confederate forefathers.'' On July 24, the Gadsden Times, the Dothan Eagle, the Decatur Daily, the Talladega Daily Home, and the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported that ``Southern preservationalists portrayed Sen. Howell Heflin as a Yankee-sympathizing turncoat Friday for his dramatic floor speech and vote against an insignia bearing a Confederate flag.'' The Tuscaloosa News also reported these objections, and it wrote that Frances Logan, president of the Tuscaloosa UDC, called Richard Shelby a traitor because he also joined Senator Moseley-Braun. The Montgomery Advertiser also reported objections from members of the UDC and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The UDC in my own home town of Tuscumbia was notably upset with the Senate. The President of this chapter expressed her disappointment with me for not stating that the war, and the symbol, were not over slavery. A former president of the Alabama United Sons of the Confederacy, said: ``What is going to be interesting is when (Heflin) tries to run for re- election''. * * * ``He's got about as much chance as the proverbial snowball when he's got these women mad at him.'' On July 24, the Mobile Register editorialized that Senator Shelby and I were ``swept into political correctness along with * * * other colleagues * * * to reject a patent for an insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.'' The editorial further asserted that rejection of the patent extension would do nothing to prevent racism. But some articles and editorials were more favorable. On July 23, the Mobile Press printed an article in which it chose to quote a number of my colleagues who supported my decision, and the Anniston Star printed an editorial supporting my decision. This editorial denied that I did my ancestors a dishonor; in fact, the editorial was so complimentary as to call my decision courageous. On the 24th, the Andalusia Star-News gave me the same compliment. The same day, the Birmingham News/Post Herald editorialized that the patent issue would be resolved only ``To the satisfaction of neither side.'' The editorial noted that Senator Shelby's and my votes ``didn't help them with the average white voter.'' But it added a great compliment to us both by suggesting that integrity played a part. The Civil Rights Restoration Act In 1990, the Congress passed a bill to restore interpretations of employment civil rights laws recently limited by the Supreme Court. But President Bush vetoed the bill in the fall, and we failed to override the veto in the Senate. This bill was generally called a civil rights restoration bill because its sponsors sought to overturn a number of Supreme Court decisions issued in the late 1980's. Congress felt the Court had become too conservative, depending too heavily on the exact wording of the law and sacrificing some of its meaning. With respect to the civil rights cases, particularly, I think the bill's authors felt that the Court had restricted the laws too much, and I agreed with them. A filibuster met this bill when it came to the floor in July. At this time, a number of Senators offered amendments to the bill. I co- sponsored one offered by Senator Ford to apply the provisions of the bill to the Senate. The Senate passed this rider, and it voted down another to allow for special procedures for itself. Among all of the amendments, however, I think the most important was Senator Kennedy's amendment to eliminate the requirement of quotas as a remedy in the bill. However, despite the Kennedy amendment, President Bush vetoed the bill based on an objection to quotas. ``It is neither fair nor sensible to give the employers of our country a difficult choice between using quotas and seeking a clarification of the law through costly and very risky litigation,'' he argued in his veto message. I was disappointed by the veto and puzzled by the President's reasoning. The bill, I said, included language explicitly stating that ``nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to require or encourage an employer to adopt hiring or promotion quotas on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.'' I judged that the bill would only have restored employment practices to the standard before the Supreme Court restrictions. The next year, the Congress and President Bush compromised on a new version of the bill, which the President declared free of quotas. This bill became Public Law 102-166. Congressional Quarterly suggested that Bush moved, in large part, because his civil rights record had earned him enemies in the African- American community. This publication also wrote that the President had other political reasons to support the bill. Not least among these were the Thomas hearings and the GOP candidacy of former Klansman David Duke for Governor of Louisiana. But to suppose that he was motivated only by his own gain strikes me as cynical; I believe that the President deserves credit for supporting and signing this Act. Ultimately, we worked out a compromise which passed as the Senate bill. It modified title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to establish specific compensatory and punitive damages capped according to the size of the business in cases of intentional bias, and it allowed for complainants to seek jury trials under this section. The compromise also rewrote statutes to overturn, effectively, nine Supreme Court rulings. In answer to Wards Cove, the new law returned the burden of proof in discrimination cases to the employer, although it left the definition of business necessity to the courts. It prohibited racial harassment after hiring, contrary to Patterson versus McLean Credit Union. It overturned Martin versus Wilks by setting specific statutory guidelines for third party challenges to consent decrees in affirmative action cases. Against Price Waterhouse versus Hopkins, it specifically disallowed consideration of race, color, religion, sex or national origin no matter what circumstances otherwise surrounded the hiring. The new law also allowed a period of time to pass after seniority systems are implemented in order to examine their effects before discrimination suits need to be filed. This statute was a response to Lorance v. AT&T. It further amended Title VII to allow for those winning suits against the U.S. government to recover interest on delays, contrary to Library of Congress v. Shaw. In order to reverse Crawford Fitting Company versus J.T. Gibbons Inc. and West Virginia University Hospitals v. Casey, it also modified this section to allow for recovery of the costs in hiring experts. Last, it allowed American workers abroad to sue U.S. companies for discrimination, against the Supreme Court's EEOC versus Arabian American Oil Co decision. Congressional Quarterly wrote that the language to reverse the Wards Cove decision--with reference to indirect discrimination, called disparate impact--was vague, and left much undecided. This vagueness was a function of the compromise we reached with President Bush. I was disappointed with the law's failure to apply the same statutes to Senate employment as in the private sector. The bill, however, did include measures to prevent employment discrimination which held Senators personally liable. This measure represented a key step in the elimination of discrimination, an end I believe the people of America and Alabama were--and are--working very hard to attain. The Legal Services Corporation During the 1980's, Congress saved the Legal Services Corporation, which provided legal assistance to the poor in civil litigation. This action followed a series of attacks leveled by President Reagan; each year he tried to abolish the corporation, and during that time, he also tried to restrict its activities and reconstitute its board. Since the Senate would not support his nominations, he made many of them in recess. Ultimately, after the Congress pushed funding through each year, Reagan gave in and requested money for the LSC in his last budget request. I fought very hard to continue the Legals Services Corporation because I believe it is essential to true equality of justice. Given increasing fees and costs, the American system of justice continues to become more difficult for the poor to access. And this unfortunate reality has had a disproportionate impact on minorities. Its continuation represented a great victory for the Congress and the people. Church Arson In June 1996, I strongly supported S. 1890, a bill to increase Federal protection against arson and other destruction of places of religious worship. For the past couple of years, black churches had been burned under suspicious circumstances and with alarming frequency, and a national response was strongly needed. To those of us who remember the violence and fires of the early civil rights movement and who applaud the progress which has been made in terms of race relations, these latest images in the early hours before dawn were profoundly disturbing. I supported this bill and other efforts to stop these kinds of hate crimes, bring their perpetrators to justice, and encourage compliance with the law. I also saw this as an opportunity to ask ourselves if we can do more to advance the causes of equal rights and racial harmony. I also called for the authorization of a transfer of funds to be used to implement the provisions of this act at the State and local levels of government. Designation of the Route of the Freedom March from Selma to Montgomery as a National Trail In 1990, I worked with Senator Kerry to introduce a bill to require a study to include the Route of Freedom, from Selma to Montgomery, in the national trails system. I introduced another in 1995 to officially include the Route of Freedom in the system. Although a conference report is still pending, the provisions to designate the Route of Freedom a national trail passed the Congress in the House's Presidio bill, a larger parks bill. Sanctions Against South Africa Beginning in the summer of 1985, I voted for the imposition of sanctions on South Africa, and I supported them until the end of apartheid. Although these sanctions remained somewhat unpopular in my home State, I believed that they were the right thing to do. Events since then have shown that sanctions did help bring about an end to apartheid and create a more stable society. African-American Staff Members Over the years, I have had many black staff members. In fact, I believe that I have had more African-Americans working for me than other Senators. My legislative director, office manager, mobile field coordinator, and others are black. As I have said, I believe that inclusion of blacks in government helps overcome symbolic and substantive obstacles to equality. However, it just happened that these staffers applied, and they were best qualified to do the job. This is the way it should be in all cases. Black Federal Marshals in Birmingham In 1993, I worked with black political leaders in Alabama to recommend two African-American U.S. Marshals in my home State. These men, Robert Moore and Bill Edwards, were very well qualified for the positions--perhaps even overqualified when compared with the usual candidates for this position. Robert Moore had recently retired from the Secret Service, where he had served as a special agent for 8 years--the last four in senior status. On July 15, 1993, Senator Shelby and I recommended Bill Edwards for the northern district of Alabama. Mr. Edwards had been with the U.S. Marshal's office in Birmingham since 1970, and at the time of our letter, he was a senior criminal investigator. He was also in his last year of law school at the Birmingham School of Law. That year, Senator Shelby and I also recommended Florence Mangum Cauthen to the middle district on August 6, and she became the first female U.S. Marshal in Alabama. Among her other accomplishments, Ms. Cauthen had taught law at Jones Law School. Title III of the Higher Education Act I sought to have a number of Alabama colleges funded through title III of the Higher Education Act. I supported a proposal to separate the general college at Tuskegee University from its renowned School of Veterinary Medicine so that both institutions could receive the benefit of title III. Normally, schools such as Tuskegee, which are considered developing institutions, receive only one grant under this law. Additionally, I saw that junior colleges were included in the title III developing institutions programs. Over the years, I have worked closely with the Department of Education to see that junior colleges and historically black institutions receive title III funds. These resources have been extremely beneficial. In the early 1980's Alabama Christian College--now Faulkner University--was turned down for a title III Developing Institutions Grant by the Education Department. Fortunately, we were able to prevail upon the Department and the White House. On a late Sunday afternoon, officials of the department reassembled outside readers and determined that Alabama Christian College's title III application should be granted. A few years later, this school received a challenge grant in the amount of $1,000,000 to assist in its development efforts. Conclusion As I reflect upon my Senate activities in connection with civil rights, a number of thoughts come to mind, including those surrounding my decision to run for the U.S. Senate. Senator John Sparkman was in his late seventies, and many of his friends did not think he would be a candidate for reelection in 1978. Then-Governor George Wallace had announced his intention to run for the Senate and was already conducting a tough campaign against Senator Sparkman. I had always been a strong supporter of Senator Sparkman. I was told by friends of his to look at the possibility of running in the event that Senator Sparkman decided to retire. I had polls conducted pitting my candidacy against that of George Wallace. The initial polls showed that if I were to run, Wallace would be far ahead of me. As I recall, the numbers first polled showed that Wallace would get about 45 percent and that I would get only about 17 percent. But my pollster, Peter Hart, indicated that there was a large amount of negative feeling in the State toward Wallace at that time and expressed his opinion that I could win such a race. One of the motivating reasons that caused me to give serious consideration to the race was that I felt that Alabama should be represented by a senator who believed in the improvement of race relations and progress in the area of civil rights. I met with Senator Sparkman in Washington, and he told me about how he had entered his first race for Congress. Archie Carmichael was then the Congressman from Senator Sparkman's district, and Sparkman had been his campaign manager when he was elected. Congressman Carmichael did not enjoy being a Congressman, only serving two terms. He called John Sparkman to Washington and told him that he ought to get ready to run for his congressional seat; that he had not made up his mind yet, but that there was a strong possibility that he would not offer himself for reelection and that Mr. Sparkman should get ready to run in the event he did not seek his congressional seat again. He said to me, ``I am telling you that story because I think you ought to get ready to run for the Senate against Wallace.'' I thanked him and told him I would follow his advice. I also relayed to him that Congressman Archie Carmichael was my wife's grandfather. Sparkman said he knew that and that was one of the reasons he wanted to tell me the story. A few weeks later, Senator Sparkman announced that he would not be a candidate for reelection, and I announced the next day that I would be a candidate for John Sparkman's seat in the U.S. Senate. My race against George Wallace was heated for several months. And then, while speaking to the Alabama League of Municipalities Convention in Mobile, he announced his withdrawal from the Senate race, giving no reason for his decision. In advance of his announcement, I was told of several polls that showed I had pulled ahead of Wallace, including a poll conducted by the Wallace campaign itself. I attracted other opponents, but won in a run-off race against Congressman Walter Flowers by a 2-to-1 margin. As I think back over the reasons I entered the race for the U.S. Senate, certainly the issue of racial progress in Alabama was a motivating factor, and I was fearful that if George Wallace was in the Senate, it could deter needed changes in the civil rights laws. In 1982, he ran again successfully for Governor. His last administration was one in which race relations were far more harmonious than they had been in his previous terms in office, with Wallace appointing a number of blacks to key positions in his administration. He publicly stated that his segregation stand had been wrong. At a recent meeting of southern black Democratic leaders in Atlanta, Dr. Joe Reed, head of the Alabama Democratic Conference, said I was the first U.S. Senator from Alabama who believed in civil rights and who took positive steps to advance the individual rights of all persons. Mr. President, despite all the progress in race relations and civil rights over the years, there is still much to be done. Our work remains unfinished, as the church burnings illustrate. When I reflect on these horrifying arsons and the death of Judge Bob Vance just a few years ago, I am again reminded of just how much remains to be done. Perhaps it is unrealistic to believe that we can ever have a truly color-blind society. As long as fear, ignorance, and emotion guide some peoples' thinking, there will be prejudice and bigotry. But we can look at the great progress we have made--just in the 18 years since I came to the Senate--and say that we are doing better. Members might differ on their approaches to civil rights issues. These approaches will take on different forms based on the region of the country we come from, our personal philosophical beliefs, and our political parties. My approach has been to do as much as possible in the public arena to advance opportunity and justice. At times, this has meant working behind the scenes to secure progressive judicial nominations, to craft compromise legislation that could pass and be signed into law, and working with both sides of an issue to cool passions and promote harmony. At other times, it has meant taking strong symbolic stands aimed at education and putting the past behind us, such as the case with the United Daughters of the Confederacy issue. Regardless of what approach we take as leaders, it is our duty to work in every way we possibly can to see that each and every American citizen enjoys the same liberty, freedom, and equality of opportunity as all others. The fulfillment of the promise of the Constitution demands that we always remain diligent in fulfilling this responsibility.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this is one of a series of general policy speeches I am delivering as my tenure in the Senate draws to a close. I will focus here on national defense and foreign policy issues--what my priorities have been as a Senator, where we stand in terms of our preparedness, and what the future might bring. It is not my intent here to be entirely comprehensive, for that would necessitate far more time than we realistically have. Instead, what I want to do here is simply to look back over my 18 years in the Senate and draw upon specific debates, crises, decisions, programs, and legislative efforts to reflect upon where we were when I came here, where we are now, and where we might go tomorrow, after I am again a private citizen. First, I wish to emphasize that we as a nation should be grateful that we face no immediate threat to our borders from foreign military powers. I am particularly proud that I have played some role in rebuilding our Armed Forces and military strength during the aftermath of the Vietnam war. This commitment on the part of our Nation contributed substantially to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and its Communist philosophy. In my opinion, it was probably the major reason. This commitment proved itself again during the Persian Gulf war. With my own experiences in World War II and observations since that time, I have felt compelled that we must at all times endeavor to obtain lasting peace, and that the primary road to achieving this goal is through military strength. It is often stated on this floor of the U.S. Senate that for the first time in decades there is no Soviet missile targeted at the United States. In general, we are fortunate that our national security and defense policy are no longer focused on a single massive Soviet adversary. But, in other ways, our decisions are now far more complex, for they must take into account far more players, some of whom may not be clearly identifiable. Moreover, I believe the United States needs to continue the development of certain initiatives originally intended to respond to the Soviet military threat. Although we no longer need to fear a nuclear superpower, other countries now have access to Soviet weapons. Many countries also have achieved the technological capability to produce nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We still face the threat of an accidental launched missile with no reliable means of defending the continental United States. Former President Reagan deserves a great deal of credit for pursuing his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983. SDI has faced tough opposition from its inception. I have fought with many of my colleagues to fund the program in the Senate. In 1984, we managed to save the program and, in fact, the American Security Council, then-majority leader Howard Baker, and the President credited me with swaying the critical votes to save funding for that year. I will always remember the President phoning me and saying ``Bless you. Bless you.'' It has remained a difficult task to continue to provide research and development funds for this program. In 1989, changing relations with the former Soviet Union continued to fuel the opponents of the program and debate has continued into the post-cold-war era. I feel that we must continue our efforts here in Congress to deploy an antiballistic missile system. And in my opinion, we should do it in evolutionary stages. The space-based laser incarnation of the antiballistic missile program must have continued research technology for the future. Today, we have the technology to develop and deploy a missile system to defend against an attack or accidental launches. We should develop and utilize that technology. Actually, I advocated this position some time before President Reagan called for the development of the SDI program. In fact, in a meeting with him, I urged him to call for such a program. When the President established an inter-agency panel to recommend the best way to proceed with the strategic defense initiative, I lobbied for this approach, and was quite pleased to learn that the panel reached the same conclusion. In later years, I introduced amendments that would require the focus of the strategic defense initiative to the deployment of ground-based systems first. Then, as now, we need a ground-based technology rather than a space-based system, like Brilliant Pebbles. The ground-based system proved itself in a theater concept during the Persian Gulf war. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has been both a consideration and a limitation in the deployment of this technology. I called for reconsideration of the ABM Treaty with the Soviets before it came up for review in 1982 while the nuclear arms race was ongoing. It seems to me a wiser approach to develop weapons that will be used only in a defensive nature. More recently, I urged the immediate deployment of a single antiballistic missile site that would be considered treaty compliant, and I have strongly advocated negotiations to allow the deployment of multiple ABM sites. Ultimately, the Congress hammered out a compromise the President could accept and which complied with the treaty to allow an unspecified number of sites to be deployed in the year 2003. Since the very early days, when critics labeled the strategic defense initiative as an absurdly futuristic plan, public opinion of ABM technology has changed. A poll last year indicated that 90 percent of the American people believe that the United States should develop a missile defense system. The Congress and the President of the United States have the support of the people, the technology to accomplish this and the means to deploy these systems. I strongly urge my colleagues in this Congress and future Congresses to not let this initiative die. Mr. President, in order to continue the preeminence of the U.S. military strength, I believe we need to continue with the development of smart weapons technology connected directly or indirectly to strategic defense. A few examples of programs I have supported over the years include the ASAT [Anti-Satellite Missiles], THAAD and other ABM technology. Even though the United States is preeminent in military technology, we must maintain a large and well-prepared conventional military force. Throughout my Senate tenure, I have always been a proponent of the American arms buildup. President Carter called for NATO nations to increase its military spending by 3 percent, which I supported. This was the first step toward rebuilding our military. In 1980, I pushed for increased defense spending because I feared that the Soviets had surpassed us in many ways, including conventional weaponry, chemical warfare, and most importantly, trained manpower. In the following years of President Reagan's two terms, I consistently supported his efforts to increase national security. More recently, I have urged a slowing to our military cutbacks. I supported President Clinton's decision to seek higher defense spending levels to deal with increasing need for the U.S. involvement in world affairs, including Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and Kuwait. The conventional forces of the United States have assumed an additional role during my time in the Senate. In order to cope with the number of small-scale threats around the world, our Nation desperately needs to maintain its quick-strike capabilities. I first advocated this type of force during the Iranian hostage crisis. At that time, it became obvious to everyone that the United States could no longer rely on its nuclear arsenal to combat the increasing number of brush fires around the world. We in Congress must make a commitment to see that the men and women in the Armed Forces have the training, the support, and technology that is deserving of the commitment these young people have made to protect our interests all around the world. Manpower remains a significant element of our national defense posture. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, I supported the reinstatement of draft registration. I have also advocated increased compensation for the men and women in the military. The quality of our forces is essential to our security. Although I opposed including women in the draft and in combat, I have fought to ensure the military uses all of its personnel to the best of their abilities. I joined in introducing a bill in 1979 to end sexual discrimination in promotions, particularly in the Navy and Marine Corps. The Navy may well be the most important element of our conventional forces. When I first came to the Senate, the United States had two ocean naval fleets. The Iranian Hostage Crisis, however, led me to believe that the United States needed to maintain a presence in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. I advocated this position at the time, but of course, it is even more important now. This region will continue to be a focal point in defense and foreign policy for years to come. We must be prepared to address unforseen developments in other regions as well. In 1981, I was alarmed to learn that our Navy had halved its strength since 1969. President Reagan and Secretary John Lehman's leadership called for the creation of a 600-ship Navy. This buildup turned out to be an effective tool in the cold war and we cannot allow too large a reduction in our current naval force. We need to maintain the ability to convey our Forces around the world and provide the strike potential of our carrier groups. For these reasons, I was particularly proud to support naming a carrier after President Reagan. I also believe that the United States must continue to focus on continuing to improve air forces. Air superiority on the battle field often times determines the outcome before the ground forces are ever deployed. The United States must continue to upgrade its fleet of B-52 bombers. In fact, this was an issue in my first campaign. I have been a supporter of the B-1 bomber since 1979, because even then, the 30-year old B-52's needed replacement. Stealth technology was still on the design table and this aircraft in my opinion was the most reasonable alternative. Opponents argued that the United States did not need a manned bomber; however, I think the need was proven in the Persian Gulf war. We must continue to embrace the stealth technology and improve upon it to maintain our air superiority. In this post Communist world, weapons proliferation still poses serious threat to our national security. For this reason, I would like to commend my colleagues, Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar, for their hard work to prevent the distribution of the weapon stockpile of the former Soviet Union. We must also not lose focus and emphasis on the United States need to keep control over its own technology. I have opposed certain nuclear sales in the past, such as President Carter's uranium fuel deal with India. India was, in my opinion, a blatant violator of the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act and I believe India also violated the 1963 act by using United States supplied nuclear fuel to build a bomb. I tried to prevent similar sales by joining in offering an amendment to the Export Administration Act of 1984 to require nuclear regulatory commission guidelines in fuel sales. Chemical warfare is another increasing threat to American security. In 1980, I attended a briefing in Fort McClellan, Alabama and learned that the Soviets greatly outmatched our defensive chemical capabilities. The Soviets had significantly more trained specialists and their regular troops were much better equipped and informed. Furthermore, reports indicated that the Soviets were willing to use offensive chemical weapons, and in fact, they had delivered chemical attacks in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos, and Yemen. I was pleased that Secretary Haig called attention to this threat in 1981. To respond to this threat, I supported the construction of a binary chemical weapons facility at Fort Smith, AR. My recollection is that then-Vice President Bush voted to break the tie vote on this issue after I cast the tie vote. The existing U.S. chemical weapons dated back 30 years; I felt they were obsolete and relatively ineffective. The threat of chemical warfare has not lessened. In fact, the potential danger is probably even greater now, as we learned in the gulf war. Increasing terrorism, like the Tokyo subway bombing, also underscores the need for chemical weapon response readiness. In order to address this problem, the Senate passed a number of chemical weapons provisions in its antiterrorism bill last year, including an amendment I offered to criminalize the possession of toxic nerve gas, which I was shocked to learn was not illegal to possess. With this in mind, I have fought since 1990 to keep Fort McClellan and its chemical school open. Senator Shelby, Congressman Browder, and officials from Calhoun County and the Federal Affairs committee at the Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce headed by Gerald Powell deserve a tremendous amount of credit for their efforts to advocate our position before the Base Closure Realignment Commission. Even though the Defense Department last year recommended the closure of this facility, the BRAC Commission twice recognized the need to keep this facility open and viable. General Schwartzkoff offered a ringing endorsement to the U.S. Senate of the live agent training and the continued operation of Fort McClellen. The General noted that chemical training had bolstered the morale of troops serving in the gulf armed with the knowledge of dealing effectively with these deadly weapons. The commander of British chemical training also argued that live agent training greatly increased confidence and morale. Even though the third BRAC Commission voted to close Fort McClellen--mistakenly, in my view-- I still hold the conviction that the United States must continue vital chemical warfare defensive training and it must keep the live agent training in the chemical school at the same facility. In order to maintain America's conventional forces at the highest level during a time of continued fiscal austerity and national debt, I want to emphasize the necessity of keeping the Pentagon at its most cost effective. In 1981, I sponsored a measure to establish an inspector general for the Department of Defense. At that time, estimates indicated that the simple elimination of waste might cut defense spending by nearly one-third. In 1983, Congress created the office, but I thought it was a mistake to make the inspector general accountable to the Secretary of Defense rather than being an independent official. I argued that an independent solution would have been more effective. I have also been an advocate of consolidated development efforts within the Pentagon, as well as revolving door and contract guidelines to increase competition. I also fought for the establishment of a central procurement office at the Pentagon. My efforts were driven to some degree by revelations made during judiciary subcommittee hearings held in 1985. At these hearings, we learned that the Pentagon had lost control of its spending, pouring hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars into a single hammer or other simple item. Another way of increasing the cost-effectiveness of our Armed Forces is maximizing efficiency through consolidation. I worked throughout my time here to enact such a plan at Fort Rucker, AL. Beginning in 1979, I advocated a plan to merge helicopter training from all four branches at the fort, and continued my efforts during President Reagan's first years in office. I urged the Defense Secretary and the OMB Director to adopt the plan, and solicited studies to examine its feasibility. Senator Shelby and I renewed this effort under President Clinton, but again, we were unable to get the Department of Defense to carry out the implementation. However, I remain firmly convinced that such consolidation plans, if put into place across the country, are obvious, commonsense ways to address wasteful duplication of effort. Increased profit through defense conversion will also be a helpful means of saving money. To this end, I supported President Clinton's technical reinvestment project to provide grants for small firms to convert from defense production to the development of technology with a dual-use, both civilian and military. With regard to antiterrorism efforts, I believe the United States needs to maintain training to cope with attacks now more than ever in its history. One facility which has served our antiterrorism goals well is the bomb school at Redstone Arsenal, AL. When I came to the Senate, this school was the only facility of its type in the country. It was run by the Army and funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Later, when the LEAA was eliminated, Congress decided to fund the school through the FBI. There was a gap in the funding for fiscal year 1981, and we succeeded in including a line-item appropriation for the school. The importance of these programs only continues to increase. After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, the Judiciary Committee held hearings to consider ways to prevent and combat terrorism in the future. We listened to testimony from the FBI director and officials from the Southern Poverty Law Center, among others. In fact, the bombing hit close to home for me personally, since just a little over 5 years before, a terrorist mailed pipe bombs to four locations in the South. My close friend, Judge Bob Vance, died in one of these attacks. Of course, I strongly believe in the individual rights provided in the Constitution, but we must work to strike a balance which preserves these rights, yet also prevents individual terrorist acts. Espionage has also taken on a different form in today's world. We are now faced with spies who embrace a new motivation--greed. They do not act out of ideology or beliefs, and have no goals but their own gain. I introduced legislation in 1985 to address this new motivation. It would have stripped any convicted spy of anything acquired through espionage, and it would have denied movie or book rights about treason. Since then, the Aldridge Ames case has demonstrated that this problem is only growing. We cannot allow ourselves to think that espionage is a thing of the past, nor that it exists only as a remnant of the Cold War. Instead, it will continue to increase, and we have as much or more to lose in the future if we cannot combat it effectively. We need to keep a close eye on our intelligence community. When Ames was finally caught, I learned that the FBI and CIA did not have access to his personal financial records. I introduced a bill to require financial disclosures from key intelligence officers at the CIA. I believe such a requirement would protect intelligence officers while also preserving our security. I also want to stress the importance of increasing our self- sufficiency in terms of energy consumption. In the past, events such as the oil crisis in 1979-1980 have taught us that the United States is too heavily dependent on foreign countries for its defense materials. Those same countries which provide us with vital raw materials could become our adversaries. At that time, I called for contingency plans and investigation of the possibilities of utilizing our domestic resources, including the Alaska oil reserves. Since then, we have faced other energy scares, such as that which contributed to the Persian Gulf war. There is no reason to believe that such crises will not recur, and I urge Congress to continue exploring alternatives to dependence on foreign energy sources. Military alignments among nations will be a major consideration in the future. One reason I supported the defense buildup in the 1980's was to reassert the U.S. position among our allies, which needs to be sustained. The expansion of NATO into the former Eastern bloc remains a key question of alignment. In 1993, NATO began to consider the admission of new members, including Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, but Russia's position was unclear. The fall of communism did not bring a conflict-free Europe, but instead brought back some of the old alignments and hostilities that had existed before the two world wars. As chairman of the Senate delegation on the North Atlantic Assembly, I introduced a plan to provide specific guidelines for getting nations ready for NATO membership pursuant to the Partnership for Peace plan. Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a vice chairman of the Assembly, joined me in this effort. Our plan calls for NATO applicants to demonstrate civilian control of the military and police, free and open elections, policies against international terrorism and crime, and other commitments desirable of NATO members. The plan also required the NAA's permanent committees to consider and report on any reform these countries might need to implement before NATO admission. I believe we need to be very cautious in the future about not treating NATO as a type of European United Nations, and remember that it is first and foremost a military alliance. In my role as chairman and cochairman of the NAA Senate delegation, I have also gained direct input from European parliamentarians on such matters as lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. Many of these leaders feared that a unilateral lifting of the embargo would cause a spillover. I argued that given the complexities of the war in Bosnia, there was simply no good way to know what effect it might have. With great reservation, I ultimately supported an amendment in the Senate to lift the embargo only under the auspices of the U.N. and NATO. While I firmly believe in keeping our military strong--the best in the world--I also believe that reducing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction should remain a top priority. In so doing, we must again look at recent history as a guide. When President Carter signed the SALT II Treaty in 1979, I had serious reservations about its provisions. Could we rely on the Soviets to be honest about compliance? More importantly, could we confirm their compliance? These questions and others weighed heavily on my mind, as they undoubtedly did on those of all involved. There were methods available to verify Soviet missile tests and other related activities, including telemetry, satellites, and radar. But, if our then-adversary violated the treaty, the problem of dealing with noncompliance remained. At that time, I advocated tough diplomacy backed up by definitive intelligence information. I felt this was the only realistic way to proceed. Of course, that was easier to say than do. What would the Soviet reaction have been? Would we have been able to rely on our own technology and intelligence for confirmation? Would they view such a stand as provocative or threatening? Another problem was the fall of the Shah of Iran. A number of our primary detection stations were in Iran, and the CIA estimated that it would take at least 5 years to recover what we had lost, due to the instability there. Ultimately, the treaty died when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. To make the point even more clear, look at the situation in 1991, when Presidents Bush and Gorbechev signed the START agreement. I was very hesitant about ratifying that treaty. Its signing came shortly after the attempted coup in August of that year. This kind of instability would almost certainly come into play with other unpredictable nations who are becoming nuclear powers. In 1991, the outcome was favorable, but we cannot always bank on such an outcome. When we do have to defend our vital national interests, economic sanctions and embargoes will continue to be an effective tool. I have usually supported sanctions over force, at least initially. I first called for the use of sanctions against Iran, after the hostage crisis began. I also introduced legislation to compensate the hostages from frozen Iranian assets in the United States. Similarly, I would have preferred the use of sanctions against Haiti rather than the threat of force. But, we must be careful with the sanctions strategy, because it is not always effective, and sometimes it hurts Americans as much as the country we are trying to influence. I felt this was the case with the grain embargoes against the Soviet Union, which hurt United States farmers more than the Government of the U.S.S.R. Generally speaking, we should ensure the effectiveness of embargoes through a cooperative international effort. Generally, I have been proud of the Senate for rallying behind the American President whenever he has determined the necessity of using our Armed Forces. The finest example of this resolve came during the Persian Gulf deployment in the fall and winter of 1990-91. I was 1 of 11 Democratic Senators to vote in favor of authorizing the use of force before the bombing began, although the entire Senate formally back President Bush after the hostilities began. I have been consistent in embracing the philosophy of supporting the Commander in Chief, regardless of the party or what I might have felt personally could have been done differently or better. I supported President Carter throughout the Iranian hostage crisis. There was nothing to be gained by second-guessing his decisions--even after the failed rescue mission of April 1980. I felt this support was especially important given the Ayatollah's strategy of portraying a weak resolve on our part. Along these lines, I was particularly horrified by Ramsey Clark's kangaroo-court style probe of United States policy toward Iran, and pressed for a criminal investigation. I also supported the invasion of Grenada to protect American citizens and the removal of the corrupt Manuel Noriega to protect our vital interests in the Panama Canal region. There have been other instances where I have been opposed to military action itself, but felt the President had the constitutional authority to initiate such action. Haiti was one example of this. I voted against a resolution requiring the President to adhere to a waiting period, although I did not want to see United States troops sent to Haiti. Another example was the deployment of ground troops in Bosnia, which I did not view as serving our vital national interests. However, I did argue that it was important to unite behind the President once his decision had been made and the troops had been deployed. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to urge the Congress to be extremely careful about cutting back our Armed Forces in the years to come. Despite what we think of as a relatively stable world, the future, in reality, is very uncertain and unclear. The nature of threats to our security is unfocused at this time. Tensions in Iraq have again flared, and instability may return to other areas of the world as well. Although world peace is our ultimate goal, it would be a serious mistake to allow ourselves to think we have reached that goal. The tensions that remain all around the world dictate that we continue our military preparedness in a manner that will allow America to be victors in any conflict that may arise with the fewest casualties possible.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional American hero and one of Alabama's favored sons, Adm. Leighton W. Smith, Jr. Recently concluding his 34 years of service in the U.S. Navy, Admiral Smith has served this Nation as a man of honor, integrity, and great courage. It is this leadership which has led our forces through many challenges, most recently in Bosnia. On April 4, 1994, Admiral Smith assumed command of Allied Forces Southern Europe, Commander Joint Task Force Provide Promise, and Commander U.S. Naval Forces Europe. Twenty eight hours later, under his command, NATO conducted its first ever air-to-ground combat operations near Gorazde, Bosnia. On numerous occasions between that April and August, 1995, NATO air forces supported the U.N. forces in Bosnia with close air support and air strikes. Simultaneously, as Commander Joint Task Force Provide Promise, he continued to oversee airland and airdrop support to the U.N. refugee program in Bosnia, saving thousands of lives. As tensions continued to rise in the fall of 1995, Admiral Smith directed Operation Deliberate Force, NATO air operations against Bosnian Serb targets. These successful operations brought the warring parties to the peace accords in Dayton that November. In December 1995, Admiral Smith assumed a fourth command hat-- Commander Peace Implementation Forces, NATO's first ever ground operation entrusted with implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement. The JFOR became nearly 60,000 strong from 34 different countries. The mission was to create a militarily secure environment in order to build peace in a country which had been devastated from three and a half years of war. Prior to Admiral Smith's most recent outstanding service, his record speaks to the numerous challenging situations he has faced and overcome. He was directly involved in operations in support of our men and women in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. This included directing combat operations into Iraq, the evacuation of civilians from Liberia and humanitarian support for the Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq. As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operations, Admiral Smith was a major contributor to Navy staff reorganization and the development of the naval strategy for the 21st century. Throughout his Naval career, Admiral Smith has received numerous awards including two Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Navy Distinguished Service Medals and three Legion of Merits, among others. Whether you know him as Leighton, Smitty, Snuffy or Snoofoir, the Admiral is a down-home man of grit and tenacity who has committed himself fully to the duties associated with service. While his easy- going humor may be disarming, Admiral Smith has the tenacity of a pit bull. He will tell you pig-farming stories from his youth and how he made the upper 95 percent of his class at the Naval Academy look good, while simultaneously going toe to toe with our adversaries in order to protect, defend and support our men and women in uniform. His honor and integrity have anchored those who have had the privilege of serving with him through both internal turmoil and international instability. On his retirement, my wife and I extend our personal wishes to Admiral Smith, his wife Dottie and their three children, Leighton III, Page, and Dee Dee.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Oakwood College as it celebrates its centennial year. Located in a beautiful setting on 1,185 acres of prime land in the northwest region of Huntsville, AL, Oakwood College was founded in 1896. It is a historically black liberal arts college operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The school enjoys a rich mix of more than 1,600 students drawn from many States, nations, experiences, and outlooks on life. The college fosters a nurturing environment that has enabled students to develop self-esteem and achieve academic success, often for the first time. A caring, supportive faculty of over 90 members--57 percent of whom hold doctorates--is responsible for Oakwood's proven ability to meet its students' academic needs. Oakwood's keen sense of community is reflected in its direct involvement with citizens of the Tennessee Valley through various campus initiatives and services. These include a speakers bureau, adult degree completion program, student-manned Volunteer Action League, a 25,000 watt radio station, annual United Negro College Fund banquet, and homecoming. Each year, the Oakwood homecoming events bring over 10,000 alumni and friends of the college to Huntsville. Oakwood is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and offers associate and bachelor's degrees in more than 35 areas of concentration. Oakwood has much to celebrate during its centennial year. Enrollment is higher than ever, graduates are achieving success at levels higher than ever before, and the campus is beautiful and its atmosphere inviting. I congratulate Oakwood College on its 100th anniversary and commend its administration, faculty, and students on all their accomplishments and academic success.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Tomorrow, Mr. President, on October 1 of this year, the Post Office will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Rural Free Delivery [RFD]. RFD now serves the whole country, some 25.5 million households and businesses in all, and it is a necessity in States like Alabama. In fact, I am proud to say that Congressman Richard Clarke of Alabama was an early leader in the effort to initiate this service. As this important anniversary approaches, I would like to recount Congressman Clarke's leadership efforts in its successful implementation. On January 5, 1892, Representative Richard Clarke became the first Member of Congress to introduce a bill to make RFD a permanent service. He introduced bills in two succeeding Congresses, H.R. 13 in the 52d and H.R. 402 in the 53d ``To provide for the free collection and delivery of mails in rural districts.'' He contacted many Members on the need for such legislation and made the first speech advocating the establishment of the program. When the bill was finally adopted by Congress, Mr. Clarke was engaged in a campaign for Governor of Alabama. Therefore, Congressman Tom Watson of Georgia took the lead in obtaining its passage. Although his name does not appear as the official sponsor of the legislation which ultimately created RFD, the people of his district and the State of Alabama have every right to claim that this Member of Congress was a leader in establishing RFD. Richard H. Clarke was born in Dayton, Marengo County, AL on February 9, 1843. He attended Green Springs Academy and was graduated first in his class from the University of Alabama in July 1861. During the Civil War, he served in the Confederate Army as a lieutenant in the First Battalion of the Alabama Artillery. He later studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1867, and began practicing in his hometown. He later moved to Demopolis, also in Marengo County, where he continued to practice law. From 1872 until 1876, he served as the State solicitor for Marengo County. He was the prosecuting attorney of the seventh judicial circuit in 1876 and 1877 and later resumed his private law practice in Mobile, AL. He served as president of the Alabama State Bar Association in 1897. He was elected as a Democrat to the 51st Congress and to the three succeeding Congresses. He served from March 4, 1889 through March 3, 1897. He served on the Rivers and Harbors Committee. Among his many legislative accomplishments was the deepening of the channel of Mobile Harbor and the establishment of Mount Vernon Hospital for the mentally ill. He ran for Governor of Alabama as a ``sound money''--gold standard--Democrat in 1896, but was defeated by the silver standard candidate, Joseph Johnston. He resumed his law practice and served in the State house of representatives in 1900 and 1901. He passed away in St. Louis, MO on September 26, 1906 and was buried in the Magnolia Cemetery in Mobile. His grandson, Dr. Richard Clarke Foster, served as president of the University of Alabama in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Of course, Congressman Clarke was by no means alone in his efforts on behalf of RFD. The Post Office says that the first rural delivery route began just after the Civil War, in a very unofficial way. In 1868, a group of families in Norwood, GA, hired a freed slave named Jerry Elliot to deliver their mail. Mr. Elliot collected his employers' sorted mail at the local post office, where future Congressman Tom Watson worked as a clerk. Apparently, Watson was highly impressed with the idea, and years later he joined as a crucial sponsor of legislation to fund the service. The official battle over RFD began more than 20 years later and spanned four Postmaster Generals. John Wanamaker, appointed in 1889, was the first Postmaster General to urge adoption of Rural Free Delivery. Wanamaker had received a number of letters complaining that the cities received free delivery, but rural America did not. Free delivery for urban areas had begun in 1863. At Postmaster General Wanamaker's request, the Congress passed a joint resolution on October 1, 1890, to authorize a test of the free delivery system in small towns and villages. It also appropriated $10,000 for this pilot program. The towns Wanamaker selected for the experiment ranged in size from 400 to 8,000 residents. Farmers became strong advocates of the service, realizing that they would receive daily market quotations and information about where they could sell their crops. With the success of his experiment and the strong support of the farmers, Wanamaker continued to push for Rural Free Delivery. The same year that Congressman Clarke introduced his second RFD bill, Congressman Tom Watson's legislation to extend RFD to farmers, rather than just villages and towns, was passed. But this measure, too, only provided for an experimental expansion. Postmaster General Wanamaker's successor, William Bissell, argued correctly that this amount was vastly insufficient to facilitate permanent RFD. In fact, Bissell refused even to continue experimentation, and a stand-off between him and Congress ultimately forced his resignation. Bissell's successor, Postmaster General William Wilson, complained that the Post Office's funding was so small that he might only improve existing services. So, a Senator named Marion Butler from North Carolina urged passage of a further appropriation, and the Post Office began an experimental system in West Virginia. This experiment proved successful, and it led to the establishment of the current system with the help of further Congressional appropriations. By that time, Postmaster General Wilson had been succeeded by James A. Gary. Mr. President, I am proud that a Member of Congress from Alabama-- Richard Henry Clarke--was so influential in the establishment of Rural Free Delivery, a service most Americans in rural areas take for granted today. Although there are several individuals who might arguably be considered the father of RFD, I wanted to make sure Congressman Clarke's efforts did not go unrecognized. The creation of this service is very much a part of his legacy. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 25, 1996, notice appeared in the Congressional Record that a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 104th Congress will be published on October 21, 1996, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. And then that there will be a publication of the Record, and that it would be available I believe on October 23. The material is to be submitted to the Office of Official Reporters of Debate at various times but up until 3 p.m. on October 21. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed permission to revise and extend remarks in connection with the space program, national security, trade, civil rights, crime, agriculture, drugs, foreign policy, domestic policy, and other related subjects including research and development matters relating to my State.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on October 12, 1996, Gadsden, AL, will celebrate its sesquicentennial. The city will mark its 150th birthday with a large parade, sidewalk sale, dedications, awards, ceremonies, fireworks, and other activities. The theme of Gadsden's celebration is ``Proud of Our Past, Confident of Our Future.'' Under the guidance of the Etowah County Historical Society, the Turrentine Avenue Historical District and the Aryle Circle Historical District have been established. Efforts are currently under way to designate downtown Gadsden a historical district. Gadsden's rich and colorful history goes all the way back to the early 1800's, when the Cherokee Indians occupied most of the territory in what is today northeast Alabama. In 1825, John Riley and his Cherokee Indian wife moved from Turkeytown, AL, to a place near the Coosa River called Double Springs where they built a log cabin. This structure, the first to be built in what is now the city of Gadsden, still stands near the intersection of Third Street and Tuscaloosa Avenue, its original wall enclosed in an outer frame structure. This house was later used as a stage coach stop and post office on the route from Huntsville, Alabama to Rome, Georgia. After the Indians were pushed west of the Mississippi River in 1838, many pioneers began moving into the expansive Cherokee Country from North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. One of the earliest of these, John S. Moragne, began buying property on the west side of the Coosa River. Another, Joel C. Lewis, settled with his family on the east side. General D.C. Turrentine and his wife moved into the area in 1842, purchased some land at the lower end of what is now Broad Street, and built a hotal called the Turrentine Inn. Surrounding this tract was the land which was to become the actual town site, owned by three of the earliest pioneers: Moragne, Joseph Hughes, and Lewis Rhea. On these 120 acres, the original survey of Gadsden was made in 1846, consisting of 260 lots. Its boundaries were First, Locust, Chestnut, and Sixth Streets. Shortly before this, a steamboat landing had been located at the foot of Broad Street, then known as Railroad Street. The first steam boat to sail up the river into Gadsden was the Coosa, built by Captain Lafferty on the banks of the Ohio River in Cincinnati and brought to Gadsden on July 4, 1845. The city founders wanted to name their new town Lafferty, but the captain objected. The name Gadsden was instead chosen to honor General James Gadsden, a soldier and diplomat who negotiated the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico. John Lay, who moved from Virginia to Cherokee Country, was a pioneer in flatboat commerce. His grandson, William Patrick Lay, was later the founder of the Alabama Power Company and the first hydroelectric plant in the world. General Turrentine organized a group of children into the county's first Sunday School, and from this core grew the religious denominations of the growing town. The First Methodist Church was organized in 1845; the First Baptist Church in 1855; and the First Presbyterian Church in 1860. By September 1857, the young village of Gadsden had a total of 150 residents. The young, energetic North Carolinian named Robert Benjamin Kyle was typical of those moving into the area round this time. He had already enjoyed a successful business career as a merchant and railroad contractor in Columbus, GA. When he came to Gadsden, his dynamic personal energy, resourcefulness, and capital made him a catalyst for the rapid growth to follow. He saw the need for a lumber business there and worked diligently to make Gadsden a railroad and steamboat center. At the outbreak of the Civil War, he was commissioned as the first recruiting agent for the Confederate Army. In 1862, he and Isaac P. Moragne organized a Gadsden volunteer infantry company which later became Company A, 31st Alabama Volunteers. During the war, the county furnished five companies of soldiers. After the war and during the Reconstruction Period, Kyle continued to develop Gadsden's natural advantages through lumber manufacturing, railroad construction, and mercantile business. One of his proudest accomplishments was the opening of Kyle's Opera House in 1881. Other churches were established, including Catholic, Episcopalian, Jewish, Christian Scientist, and Lutheran congregations. In 1867, Etowah County had been carved out of Cherokee, Saint Clair, Marshall, Calhoun, Blount, and DeKalb counties and given the name ``Baine,'' in honor of Colonel D.W. Baine, who had been killed in 1862 with the 14th Alabama Regiment. When the Reconstruction's military government was established in 1868, officials protested so vigorously that the county's name was changed to ``Etowah,'' which is a Cherokee word meaning ``good tree,'' in 1869. Ten years after the war, Gadsden was no longer a small village: It had over 2,000 inhabitants. Nineteen businesses boasted a trade of more than one million dollars each and the first public school opened in 1877. The 1880's saw the organization of the first fire department, erection of street lamps, and a garbage department. It had become a center for coal, iron ore, timber, and cotton. By the turn of the century, Gadsden was fast becoming the ``Queen City of the Coosa.'' Industry was looking at and coming its way. In 1895, the Dwight Manufacturing Co. opened a plant in nearby Alabama City. The first steel plant was erected in Gadsden in 1905, the Alabama Power Co. in 1906, and Goodyear in 1929. During World War I, men from Gadsden fought with the famous ``Rainbow'' division from the area. Nearby Rainbow City, Rainbow Memorial Bridge, and Rainbow Drive were all named in honor of these servicemen. This division had been raised and coordinated by a young Douglas McArthur. In 1925, East Gadsden merged with Gadsden, the same year the Alabama School of Trades was built. In 1926, the Noccalula Falls lands were purchased by the city. Today, these grounds are among the most popular and beautiful tourist attractions in Alabama. The Etowah County Memorial Bridge was built and dedicated in 1927. In 1932, Alabama City and Gadsden merged into one city. In 1937, the third largest steel company in the U.S., Republic, came to Gadsden. This plant has been in continuous operation since then. During World War II, major construction occurred as the Gadsden Ordnance Plant was built and the Gadsden Air Force Depot was completed. It was closed in 1958. During the Korean Conflict, the Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to Gadsden native Ola Lee Mize for bravery during this war. He was later a Green Beret in Vietnam. Gadsden Mall opened in 1974, the same year that the Nichols Library was added to the National Register. It was the first library in Alabama to issue books to the public. In 1986, Gadsden changed its form of government from a commission type to a mayor-council form. Today, the city's factories, churches, businesses, schools, and tourism industry stand as testimonials to a heritage of which the citizens of modern Gadsden may be justifiably proud. As it celebrates its 150th anniversary, Gadsden will prove itself once again a ``City of Champions'' and an ``All-American City.''

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to another of the many outstanding Members of Congress who will be leaving as the 104th Congress draws to a close. That Member is my good friend from Alabama's Third Congressional District, Representative Glen Browder. Glen Browder has served in the House of Representatives since winning an April 4, 1989 special election to succeed long-time Congressman Bill Nichols, who had passed away unexpectedly on December 13, 1988. Throughout his seven and a half years in Congress, he has been a loyal friend to the people of his district and an outspoken leader on national defense issues. He approaches his job with a deliberative, studied, and professorial approach that has helped him make the right decisions for his constituents and for the nation as a whole. This type of leadership is not surprising coming from Glen Browder, who holds a doctoral degree in political science from Emory University in Atlanta. He also has a bachelor of arts in history from Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina and a master of arts in political science, also from Emory. Congressman Browder was born in Sumter, South Carolina on January 15, 1943. He attended the elementary schools in Sumter, where he graduated from Edmunds High School in 1961. He spent the next ten years or so earning all these academic credentials--his BA in 1965 and his MA and Ph.D. by 1971. He is married to Sara Rebecca (Becky) Browder and they have a daughter, Jenny Rebecca. While he was in college, the future Congressman from Alabama worked as a public relations assistant at Presbyterian College, sportswriter for the Alabama Journal, and investigator for the Civil Service Commission in Atlanta. Since 1971, he has been a professor of political science at Jacksonville State University in his hometown, Jacksonville. He has been on a leave of absence from the university since coming to Congress. Before his election to the House, he had served in the Alabama House of Representatives from 1982 through 1986 and as Alabama Secretary of State from 1987 through 1989. Congressman Browder fought tenaciously to keep Fort McClellan open. He led two successful Base Closure Commission battles to defeat the ill-advised effort of the Army and the Department of Defense to close it. As the home of the chemical corps of the Army and of the only live- agent training facility in the world, Fort McClellan garnered his unyielding support. Senator Shelby and I were totally supportive of Congressman Browder's leadership, but his studied expertise in the field of defensive chemical warfare allowed him to make arguments on what was in the best interests of the nation, in addition to the one based on the anticipated detrimental effects to the local economy. I will never forget his superb presentation to the Base Closure Commission in a classified hearing on the need for live-agent training as well as the threat of chemical warfare from terrorist nations around the world. The third BRAC round led to a decision to finally close Fort McClellan, since the vote was a tie vote and a majority was necessary to take action to keep a base open. He was an excellent field marshall throughout each of these battles. Glen Browder also won many battles for the Anniston Army Depot and Fort Benning, a portion of which is located in the southern part of his district. Congressman Browder has done an excellent job of balancing the various needs of his diverse district and has looked after the interests of the entire State of Alabama. As a member of the House Armed Services and Science, Space, and Technology Committees, he has fought for our national security and for continued funding for the space program, which has a large presence in north Alabama. He has also compiled a conservative legislative record, while at the same time supporting the Democratic party leadership on most crucial votes. His district contains the largest number of textile and apparel businesses in the nation, and he has always fought for the interests of this industry as well as its workers. His district contains Tuskegee University, Jacksonville State University, and Auburn University. He has consistently and strongly supported both higher education in general and the particular interests of these outstanding institutions of higher learning. I am proud to have been able to serve with Congressman Browder in the Alabama delegation over the last seven years. It has been a pleasure to work with him on base closure and other vital issues. He is a proven leader who will be sorely missed when the 105th Congress convenes early next year, but I am confident that we will see him in other leadership roles in the future. I congratulate him and wish him well.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution of ratification of the third International Natural Rubber Agreement [INRA]. The purpose of INRA is to assure adequate supplies of natural rubber by stabilizing natural rubber prices without distorting long- term market trends. It accomplishes this through the operation of a buffer stock which buys and sells natural rubber whenever the price falls outside of a market-based price band. The INRA benefits both producers and consumers of natural rubber. Natural rubber is a critical material used in virtually every tire and many rubber products made in the United States. There is no material that can serve as a complete substitute for natural rubber. The United States is the largest consumer of natural rubber in the world, and adequate supplies are critical to major U.S. manufacturers such as the automotive industry. For 16 years, the United States has benefited substantially from the market stability which resulted from the operation of the two previous INRA agreements. Failure to ratify the third INRA is likely to result in price volatility and supply shortages. This in turn will have serious adverse consequences for workers and consumers across the country and in my own State. Alabama is a major producer of tires and other rubber products. Companies manufacturing these products have invested an estimated $1.5 billion in their Alabama facilities. They employ nearly 6,000 workers. The price volatility and supply shortages that would follow if INRA is not ratified would have an immediate impact on these workers. And the price effect of short supplies would soon be felt by consumers. INRA has the support of the Rubber/Plastic Industry Conference of the United Steel Workers of America as well as the tire and rubber products industry. Other major consumer and producer nations have already approved INRA. Our action today will allow this beneficial agreement to go into effect. Finally, the administration is not requesting an appropriation of funds to carry out this agreement. Rather it proposes rolling over the U.S. share of the buffer stock under the second agreement to carry out our obligations under the third agreement. This is precisely the course of action taken when the second INRA agreement was approved. When the agreement ends, these funds will return to the Treasury. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support INRA.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, all Members of the Senate are faced with difficult decisions almost on a daily basis. The day of my announcement not to seek a fourth term in the Senate--March 29, 1995--was one of the most difficult of my life. By that day, I had been wrestling with this decision for some time. There had been some health problems, but I was fully confident of running for and winning a fourth term. I have always loved campaigning, and getting back on the trail was a powerful temptation. The reality was, however, that another term would have taken me well beyond the normal age for retirement. I am 75 and would have been 81 by the end of another term. Ultimately, the decision was that the time had come to pass the torch to another generation. Anyone who has ever held a Senate seat understands the magnitude of this great constitutional responsibility. The Senate is an awesome institution, and the opportunity to serve there is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon any individual. For anyone in public life who has attained the confidence of the people to carry out such a responsibility, the decision to leave voluntarily is a difficult one, even when we know that it is best for ourselves, our State, and our Nation. It is a bittersweet decision that stems from a solemn responsibility. Those returning to the 105th Congress already know this; those who will be joining that Congress in the coming days will soon come to that realization. As Senators, we have to be students of the issues. It is important to be impartial, fair-minded, and willing to listen to opposing views. My decisions and votes have been based upon conscientious beliefs motivated by what I thought was in the best interests of my State and Nation, but sometimes tempered by the views of a sizable portion of my constituency. No doubt, Alabamians and my party were confounded at times, but hopefully, they understood that my positions were based on what I believed to be right. One of our responsibilities as Senators is to sometimes take stands and positions with which the majority of citizens in our States do not agree. The difficulty of taking such unpopular stands and decisions cannot be overestimated. It can be a wrenching experience, as was the vote on the 1993 budget reconciliation legislation which raised taxes-- even though primarily on a small number of wealthy individuals--but which also headed us in the right direction in terms of deficit reduction. This 1993 budget reconciliation bill had been grossly distorted and mischaracterized by its opponents almost beyond recognition. Several courageous Members of Congress who supported it were defeated in the next election. Since then, the economic and budgetary figures and forecasts show that supporting that bill was the right thing for the Nation. In any case, since our first duty under the Constitution is to our country as a whole, these times and politically difficult situations will inevitably arise. Rather than running away from these stands, Senators have to meet them directly, stand firm, and explain to our constituents why we believe we are right. Although they might never agree with us, over time, they will understand and respect us for assuming responsibility. This will be even more true in the new Congress, the Congress whose leaders, along with the President sworn in on January 20, 1997, will take the country right into the new century and millennium. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have had to oppose Supreme Court nominees I thought to be ill-suited by temperament or background to serve on the Nation's highest court. On other occasions, I have supported nominees whom I knew not to be popular among my constituents, but who deserved my support. Despite criticism that the Senate is no longer the great forum for debate and policymaking established by the Founders, there have been many examples of such debate during my tenure. These are times when the Senate as an institution soars, when Members are the statesmen they are elected to be. One such time was the debate on the resolution authorizing military action in the Persian Gulf in early 1991. It was one of those rare moments when each and every Member had to look deep within his or her soul and go on record telling the American people either why they would allow young men and women to be sent into harm's way without a declaration of war, or why they could oppose the President of the United States and an entire world coalition poised to thwart aggression. As each Senator spoke, you could see and feel the deep emotion that seemed to emanate from the very heart of each speaker. Each decision, each vote, was profoundly personal. Many of us had served in the military and knew something of the horrors of military operations, even if those operations were successful. I know of no one who did not understand the gravity of what we were deciding. Ultimately, the Senate voted narrowly, 52 to 47, to authorize the use of force to eject Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. Despite reservations and uncertainty, I was one of a few from my party who supported the authorization. All we could draw from in making this decision was our own experience and knowledge, our faith in the American Armed Forces, and the collective will of the civilian and military leaders to ensure victory. I would venture that most of us said a private prayer before casting our votes, hoping that we were doing the right thing and that events would vindicate us. I was struck at the sincerity and emotion surrounding this debate, and, as a Senator, was proud to have taken part. I thought to myself that this was the kind of debate the Founders envisioned. Another one of these dramatic and emotional debates took place on the Senate floor on July 22, 1993. One Senator had offered an amendment to pending legislation to grant an extension of the United Daughters of the Confederacy patent outside the normal process established by the Patent and Trademark Office. Only a very small number of organizations had ever been granted patents by the Senate, with the United Daughters of the Confederacy being one of those. This extension by the Senate would place that body's stamp of approval on the group's patent. Part of its insignia is a Confederate national flag. Freshman Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, the only black Member of the Senate and the first-ever female black Member in all its history, came to the floor to oppose the amendment. She spoke eloquently on the floor of the issue of race, of symbolism, of division, and of intolerance. Her passion, candor, spirit, emotion, and determination moved the Chamber in a way that I have rarely witnessed. One by one, Members began articulating very personal statements about their feelings on race relations in this country and the lingering symbolism and emotions that complicate those relations. As I listened to the debate, I felt a deep personal conflict as to how I should vote on this amendment. I was torn between my love for my native South and the racial conflicts which remain in America today. I come from an ancestral background deeply rooted in the Old Confederacy. One of my great-grandfathers was one of the signers of the Ordinance of Secession by which the State of Alabama seceded from the Union in 1860. My paternal grandfather was a surgeon in the Confederate Army. History always provides perspectives on a particular time in the life of a nation, and I have always had a firm belief with regard to my family's background that they did what they thought was right at that time and in those circumstances. I have always revered my family and respected those who thought what they were doing at that particular time in our history was morally correct. Ultimately, it became clear that the issue was primarily one of symbolism. By adopting this amendment, which would put the Senate's stamp of approval on an insignia carrying the Confederate flag in a very special and honorific manner, we would not serve the causes of advancing race relations or healing wounds. It would not be a step forward. I felt that if my ancestors were alive today and witnessing that debate, they would stand for what is right and honorable and would want to take a symbolic step forward. In this case, one Senator, acting upon the courage of her convictions and her unique perspectives as an African-American, helped reverse a decision of the Senate. I thought again about how the Senate as an institution was fulfilling the promise of the Founders. New and returning Members of this body, as well as the House of Representatives, will no doubt face similar debates and issues which will test and challenge the Congress. Despite these proud moments in the life of the Senate and Congress, there is still the perception among the vast majority of Americans that the system as a whole does not work as it should. They feel strongly that government does not respond to their needs. In many cases, they view it as being totally irrelevant to their daily lives and experiences. Ironically, as more and more information about government has become available over the last decade, the alienation of the citizenry has increased. Despite the C-Span cameras, the proliferation of constituent-service staff, and the plethora of news, both written and broadcast, people still feel that they are somehow cut out of the political process. This is one of the gravest problems the new Congress and administration will face as they approach the next century, since it undermines the very legitimacy of our democratic form of government. There are any number of reasons for this ongoing alienation. Gridlock between the two Houses of Congress, between the political parties, and between the Congress and White House is most often cited as the primary reason for the public's disgust. A certain amount of what is called gridlock, however, is built into the system by the Constitution. Congress is, by design, an institution which moves rather slowly in making law. This is especially true of the Senate, where the wishes of a cohesive minority hold considerable sway. This is so the passions of the moment are allowed to cool before laws are passed. Careful deliberation, analysis, and long-range thinking were important to the Founders, and these are usually necessary ingredients in legislating. If anything, the Congress which will be sworn in shortly will not have enough of these ingredients. Few in their right mind will argue that it suffers from too much deliberation, analysis, or thought. In fact, it will need more. If we look back over the last few years and compare passed conditions with those in mid-1996, we see that we have made tremendous strides. We won the cold war; our economy is healthy; we have the lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in 27 years; the budget deficit is decreasing even faster than rosy projections earlier predicted; and our national defense and international diplomatic structure are strong. Millions of new jobs in basic industries like automobiles and construction have been created and for 3 years in a row, we have had a record number of new businesses started in our country. More and more businesses are making capital investments, a strong sign of economic prosperity. The rate of violent crime is coming down all across America, although we still have a long way to go to make our streets safe. Race relations are still not anywhere near what they should be, but civil rights laws have helped secure the promise of America for more of our citizens than ever. The road toward equal opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, color, gender, creed, or other station in life has many miles to go, but we should be proud of the progress we have made and build upon it for the future. In terms of the institution of Congress itself, there is no doubt that it has made great strides in terms of ethics and behavioral standards. People might not want to hear it or believe it, but the people we have serving in Congress today are the most ethical and least corrupt of any in its history. I served on the Senate Ethics Committee for a total of 13 years as either chairman or vice chairman, and can say definitively that the vast majority of Members tried their best to comply with ethical standards and rules. The perception that they are here to enrich themselves at taxpayers' expense is simply false. Senators were always coming to the Ethics Committee trying to comply with the rules, not to get around them. Of course, there are inevitable lapses, as would be the case with any large organization made up of people from all over the country and from all kinds of backgrounds, some of low standards of integrity. From the perspective of ``how it used to be,'' the taxpayers are vastly better off now than in decades passed, regardless of the perceptions and media distortions. We have accomplished a great deal and have made tangible progress. Why don't people recognize these areas of progress? Part of the answer undoubtedly lies in the fact that we no longer have a common, external enemy at which to direct our considerable energies. For the first 40 or so years after World War II, communism was our greatest threat. It caused the Government and the public to rally together toward its ultimate defeat. In the early 1990's, as that promise was realized, people seemed to turn toward one another and ask ``What now?" As I watched in amazement as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I couldn't help but feel that somehow, many Americans were missing the event's true significance. Our victory in the cold war did not seem to have the resonance around the country that one would expect. For decades, our entire defense and foreign policy had been formulated around the goal of fighting communism. It was truly astounding that our resources could now be channeled elsewhere. And yet, the passion, the excitement, the relief just didn't seem to be there. Almost immediately, a sizable segment of the population seemed to begin searching for another enemy. Unfortunately, there are those whose primary motivation is the hatred of an enemy. There was talk of a peace dividend. Various special interest groups staked their claims to pieces of that dividend, while others wanted to substantially reduce taxes. New enemies were found within our own borders as the competition arose for still-scarce resources. As the cold war ended, the mounting budget deficit and national debt became a policy issue. There would really not be a peace dividend, as such, since our fiscal house was not in order. I had long supported a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, but by the mid-1990's, it had gained broad public support and majority support in Congress, but still not the two-thirds needed to send it to the States for ratification. Sadly, what brought us to such a serious budgetary state was a failure on the part of our Government to address our fiscal problems before they nearly spiralled out of control. It was the fault of the political parties, the Congress, and the President. But it was also the fault of the public for expecting and demanding so much, much of it contradictory to the long-term health of our economy. Government leaders should have had the courage to say no much more often than they did. We all have to accept responsibility for our mistakes if we are to move forward and continue to bring down the deficit. It does no good to blame each other; it does profound good to acknowledge mistakes and collectively dedicate ourselves to fiscal discipline and the modest sacrifice it requires. Regardless of the legitimacy of public perceptions, the alienation and frustration with our Government are real threats to the stability of our Nation. Unless they feel like they are a part of the process and able to influence its outcome, the alienation and frustration will only grow and intensify. For much of our history, our national leaders and political parties adopted mainstream, centrist policies aimed at securing economic security and promoting opportunity. Of course, there are times when this has not been the case, but Government has worked best when it has operated from the center of the spectrum. Only when we have strayed too far to the left or right have we fallen so out of favor with the citizenry. To a great degree, that is what has happened over the last few years, with Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans becoming more conservative. Since the vast majority of the people are politically moderate in their beliefs and values, they have become, in a sense, alienated from both sides, not comfortable with the extreme views the parties have adopted. The bipartisanship that is so crucial to the operation of Congress, especially the Senate, has been abandoned for quick fixes, sound bites, and, most harmfully, the frequent demonization of those with whom we disagree. It is supremely ironic that as we try to foster democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and have seen democracy make great strides in many areas, we seem to face our strongest threat from within. Some elected officials, media personalities, extreme elements within political parties, and single-issue organizations strive to pit one group of Americans against another. The focus on divisive issues has increased the alienation and driven us farther and farther apart. In my judgment, much of the answer to this alienation lies in what I call compassionate moderation. Instead of being so concerned with policies which are left and right, Government should be concerned with the principles of right and wrong that come from approaching issues in measured, moderate, and compassionate tones. Both compassion and moderation must be seeded in basic conservatism and responsibility, rooted to induce individualistic growth and opportunity. Even where voters opt for change, they do not favor extremism; instead, they want carefully crafted and nuanced policies that address the concerns of the majority and, where needed, the disadvantaged in our society. This is the kind of responsible and compassionate moderation upon which our Nation was founded. Our Constitution itself came about through a series of great compromises; it was not written by ideologues who clung to their way or no way. Compromise and negotiation--the hallmarks of moderation--aimed at achieving moderate, centrist policies for our country should not be viewed as negatives. They should be valued, for that is the only way to reach consensus on complicated issues and problems that face us. By being compassionately moderate in our attitudes, we can govern ourselves responsibly and reach the potential which we have yet to attain. Thomas Jefferson demonstrated a belief in the concept of compassionate moderation when he called for basic republican simplicity in institutions and manners. He knew that a limitation on Government did not mean the abdication of the Government's responsibility. Similarly, in his own farewell address to the Nation, President Eisenhower said that: It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system--ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Both of these great leaders envisioned a strong, but limited, National Government which could balance competing interests in the pursuit of overall liberty and equality. During his term as Vice President, Jefferson once asked for a room in Baltimore's preeminent hotel. Not recognizing the Vice President, who had shown up alone and in soiled working clothes, the owner turned him away. Shortly after Jefferson's departure, the owner was told that he had just sent away the Vice President of the United States. The horrified proprietor immediately dispatched some of his workers to find Jefferson and offer him as many rooms as he liked. The Vice President had already taken a room at another, more modest, hotel, and sent the man who found him back to the owner with this message: Tell [the owner] that I value his good intentions highly, but if he has no room for a dirty farmer, he shall have none for the Vice President. Our Government's greatest successes have come about precisely because it has made room for dirty farmers and all kinds of hard workers. It has made room for those who want to work hard, but who might be disadvantaged by poverty, injustice, or oppression. It has never been the task of Government to guarantee success to everyone across-the- board. Instead, it has been to ensure, through responsible sensitivity and compassion, that everyone has the opportunity to work toward the kind of life and success for which we all strive given the same opportunities. When we fall short, it should not be because Government has done the wrong thing, whether too much or too little--it should be only because we as individuals did not take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our free society through our Constitution and backed up by representative, democratic Government. The extreme elements of our Government must realize that compromise is not bad, that we can be compassionate and responsible at the same time by being moderate in our approach to public policy. No one of us can remake Government or society in our own image. With 535 Members of Congress, thousands of executive branch officials, constitutionally mandated checks and balances, shared power, and a strong two-party political system, compromise is an inherent necessity. If compromise is abandoned for rigid ideology, the system cannot work as it was intended. Frequently, it becomes a hostage to gridlock and inaction. If we look back over history, we see that moderation and centrism in Government have led to some rather remarkable achievements. As we ponder the cynicism and disfavor with which the Government is viewed today, it occurs to me that we may have, in some ways, become victims of our own successes. As more and more is taken for granted, standards are set higher, often unrealistically so. This results in recurring disappointment. In 1954, ours was a country where poll taxes separated millions of citizens from their basic right to vote. Restaurants, hotels, schools, and neighborhoods were totally segregated by race. Through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and subsequent legislation, these Americans have been brought into the process and enfranchised. The Head Start Program, for example, remains one of the single most effective program ever designed for keeping high-risk children in school. My own civil rights record is one of which I am exceedingly proud. It has been publicly stated by black leaders that I was the first Senator from my State who believed in and supported the civil rights movement. I worked to secure the extension of the Voting Rights Act; to appoint African-Americans and women to the Federal bench and other Federal offices; to support historically black colleges; to ensure passage of the civil rights restoration bill; to help pass the fair housing bill; and to establish a national holiday honoring the late Martin Luther King, Jr. My philosophy on the issue of civil rights has always been one of moderation, of trying, where possible, to get people to lower their voices and work together for progress. Again, by avoiding the lightning rod rhetoric of the extreme positions, we can successfully move forward. In 1955, only 63 percent of our high school students graduated. Those who did stay in school did not have access to advanced science or math courses in a majority of school districts until passage of the Defense Education Act of 1958. Higher education had traditionally been the preserve of the well to do. A full decade after the GI bill was signed into law, there were still only 430,000 college graduates each year. Following passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, college enrollment increased by 300 percent. Perhaps the largest public construction project in American history began with the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, which ultimately doubled the Nation's highway system and provided new corridors of growth. The National Highway System of today is the envy of the world and is a growing testimony to the strong, steady leadership of President Eisenhower, who did not shy away from the moderate label. Indeed, he eloquently championed the concept of balance in public affairs throughout his January 1961 farewell address to the Nation. Other legislation and policies guided technology into the marketplace. The leadership and vision of President John Kennedy in terms of space exploration led to the lunar landings, the commercialization of space, and numerous scientific advances. These projects were not advanced in the pursuit of a party's retaining power or in the interest of a particular ideology being thrust upon the American people. They were advanced because there was a bipartisan consensus that they were good for the future of the country. They came from the center, not the extremes. In the America of 1954, poverty and age were often indistinguishable, especially in parts of the South. The average monthly Social Security benefit was only $59. A child was three times less likely than today to survive its first year of life. The success of the Social Security Program has helped lower poverty rates among senior citizens to the lowest level in the population. The Medicare Program brought 32 million seniors into the health care system. The Women, Infants, and Children Program began to reduce infant mortality and aid to families with dependent children brought vulnerable children basic sustenance. Revelations of child hunger during the 1960's gave rise to the school lunch program. Later, deregulation of the airline, trucking, and telecommunications industries produced millions of new jobs and lowered prices for transportation and telephone services. The agricultural community is considerably better off today than when I came to the Senate in 1979. We have strived to craft farm policy which provides market stability and allows American farmers to aggressively pursue international markets. At the same time, these farm programs have dramatically reduced the cost to the U.S. Treasury. When I came to the Senate, one of my major goals was to help modernize and reform our Federal courts, much as we had done on the State level while I was on Alabama's Supreme Court. My efforts were focused on improving the Federal judicial system and relieving court congestion in criminal and civil cases. We were successful to a large degree, particularly in the areas of criminal justice and bankruptcy, although much could still be done. Today, our system of civil justice faces one of the greatest tests in its long history. The very foundation of our civil justice system and more than 500 years of the development of common law are under attack, including the right of trial by jury. We must continue to face these assaults by improving the administration of justice and maintaining its historic role in protecting the weak and disadvantaged. Of course, the programs mentioned above, as well as many others, are in need of reform. We all agree they should be streamlined and made more efficient. We should implement incentives for those on public assistance to work and become self-sufficient. The task of government, however, should just that--reform, streamlining, and improving efficiency. It should not be to tear down, eliminate, and dismantle just for the sake of reducing government. These government success stories and others are the result of compassionate, moderate, democratic government aimed at securing opportunity for and promoting responsibility among all Americans. No, these accomplishments did not result in the Great Society as envisioned by President Johnson and much-maligned in some political circles today. Some want to label all the Great Society programs as failures. It is fashionable to make them euphemisms for liberal big-spending government. Some of these programs were indeed disappointments worthy of the criticism they receive today. Certainly, there was some idealistic overreaching, which resulted in a pattern of dependency we are trying to combat through current welfare reform efforts. Even so, many good things came about, resulting in a better society, one that has come about due to more Americans than ever having basic opportunities to succeed and pursue their dreams. Instead of focusing on our failure to reach some sort of utopia, or unduly blaming each other for the overreaching that led to dependency among some segments of the population, we should take enormous pride in the fact that when it has been needed, our Government has usually done the right thing for our people. At the same time, we cannot rest on our laurels, but must learn from success--and from our failures--in order to reach even greater success and avoid the same shortfalls in the future. In this way, personal initiative can be enhanced where it is needed. In an era of shrinking government, programs designed to provide incentives for the private sector to search for solutions to public problems will become increasingly important. What can we do specifically to enhance the concept of moderation and promote its ability to yield the kinds of centrist government actions that help the vast majority of our citizens? How can the leaders of the next American century put aside personal ideology and work for policies and programs that promote opportunity and individual initiative, and that promote the public good? What can the new Congress do to change public perceptions about government? To begin with, bipartisanship should be one of the most used--if not the most used--guide for Congressmen and Senators when they initiate and pursue legislation. The lessons of the 1993 budget debate, health care reform in 1994, and most elements of the Contract With America in 1995 and 1996 point to the obvious pitfalls of one party trying to govern by itself. To promote more bipartisanship, ways should be found to bring about more informal togetherness among Members of opposite parties. One of the wonderful byproducts of the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast gatherings has been the friendships forged across party and ideological lines. These friendships have led to more openness and willingness to discuss issues on a cordial basis. They promote the identification of common ground. This informal togetherness concept could be expanded to Senate standing committees like Agriculture, where I serve. Members could hold regularly scheduled luncheons and dinners among themselves and occasionally with their spouses. Another way to foster bipartisanship would be to have more committee hearings outside Washington in various regions of the country. These should be scheduled during recess periods, when Members are usually out of Washington anyway, or during extended weekends. Committee members traveling together get to know each other on a personal basis much better. Friendships and better understanding will no doubt be among the results. Issue discussions in informal settings should be frequent occurrences, particularly between the leadership of the respective parties and should, on occasioin, include White House leadership. Similar informal togetherness gatherings should occur among staff members. Such recommendations to enhance a spirit of bipartisanship and to foster personal relations among Members of Congress might seem to be stating the obvious, even trivial in light of all the challenges we face. This spirit and these relationships have suffered greatly in recent years, however, and can only be restored through focusing on them. Congress, and especially the Senate, is only as strong and effective as the links between its Members. Newcomers to the institutuion will soon learn the importance--the necessity--of working together and compromising. The basic point is to soften the lines of partisanship and division that often impede the legislative process. Along with sincere efforts to increase bipartisanship, overall expectations must be lowered. There is a consensus in both parties and among the public at large that Government cannot be expected to do all things for all people. Constituents cannot continue to make contradictory calls for a downsizing of Government and a lowered deficit while at the same time demanding more services and benefits. Members must have the political courage to tell this truth and to point out this reality. The realities of our two-party system dictate that there will be issues upon which the parties will never agree. After all, the parties do hold competing views for the future of the country. This is not necessarily bad. It creates alternatives and requires leaders to articulate a vision. But, there are enough large issues that confront us that bipartisanship is the best way--perhaps the only way--to achieve success. By focusing on broad goals that come about through compromise, Members do not foresake their parties or philosophies. Where bipartisanship and working together are not possible, perhaps it is best to pull back and perhaps wait for another time to pursue action. This is in stark contrast to the tendency in recent Congresses to forge ahead, even where failure is certain, and then blame the other side or party for the failure. Sometimes legislation and ideas need to simmer and gel before being acted upon. There should be a ladies' and gentlemen's agreement making it a taboo to demonize your political opponents. Far too much of today's debate consists of trying to promote one's position through the character assassination of an opponent. Even in circumstances where this tactic succeeds, the victory is inherently hollow and will not stand the test of time. Both major parties could have their campaign committees designed to work together to create less negativity and friction in political campaigns. The first agreement should be to ban negative campaign ads. In the spirit of President Eisenhower, the status of his self- proclaimed moderation should be returned to that of a political virtue rather than a governing liability. Regardless of the personal ideologies and views of individual Members of Congress, the national legislature should reflect the moderate course of a moderate populace. This does not mean that ideology and political passion do not or should not count; it does mean that sometimes they should be suppressed in the best interests of the Nation as a whole. In such a complex, diverse, and large country as ours, extreme, rigid views on either side can only perpetuate alienation from and dissatisfaction with Government. It has always struck me as rather interesting that the vast majority of the policy foundations, issue study centers, and think tanks are either identifiably conservative or liberal in their orientation. There are very few that are seen as centrist in their outlook. Perhaps private sources could establish an Institute for reason and moderation or a center for responsible government to review and monitor legislation under broad guidelines designed to produce a scholarly moderate approach to and evaluation of issues. As I leave the Senate and public service, I want to thank the people of my State for their faith and trust over the years. As I pass the torch to a new generation, I also want to thank my Creator for the blessing of health and energy during my lifetime so far, and for giving me the opportunity to serve our great Nation and my fellow citizens. As my time in the Senate draws to a close, I am reminded of the fact that our Nation--the United States of America--is not based on any one language, culture, or geographic area as are most older nations. Instead, it is based on a set of ideals, which, while relatively few in number, really encompass all the elements that constitute the core of who we are as a people. These are liberty, freedom, democracy, equality, opportunity, human dignity, and respect for others. These are the great ideals that brought us to these shores in the first place, and which will take us into the next century. Since our country is still so much a work in progress, I still believe that our best years are ahead. Sure, growing pains, in the nature of social problems, world threats, and ideological divides, will continue to occur. But by weathering these storms and finding remedies for them, we become stronger and better able to meet and adapt to changing demands and conditions. This adaptability and resourcefulness--benefits resulting from the genius of our Constitution and the Government it charters--have served us particularly well during the last several decades of intense social and technological change. This ability, with which America is uniquely equipped due to the ideals upon which it is founded and the Constitution which enshrines those ideals, can continue to guide and serve us well and will continue to be our greatest natural resource.