Terry Everett

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge a ``no'' vote against this strictly political amendment.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the procurement committee.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is so ridiculous. We have sponsors of amendments up here that have no idea about the program, do not serve on either the authorizing or the appropriating committees, the Committee on Agriculture, or its subcommittees. Frankly, this is an ill-conceived amendment, as my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, said. It really ought to be pulled. This is an embarrassment to the House. First of all, it is price fixing. it is kind of odd that these folks want to fix the price to a farmer who goes out there and puts his capital out there, who sweats and earns his living by his brow, but they do not want to fix the price to the sheller or the manufacturer. They can charge as much as they want to. Another definition that needs to be explained here is when these folks get up and talk about consumers and quote the GAO report, guess who they are talking about? They are talking about the first buyer of that peanut, which is the sheller and manufacturer. They are not talking about the housewife. We have congressional testimony in committees where these manufacturers say they will not pass one thin dime on to the housewife, not one thin dime.

Mr. EVERETT. Not one iota, Mr. Chairman. Anybody that believes that has driftwood where their brains ought to be. There is no question about that. There is no evidence whatsoever that one dime of this, and anybody that would say anything like it was going to reduce the cost of peanut butter by 35 cents a jar has no idea where he is coming from, has nothing to support that with, absolutely nothing. Mr. Chairman, this is price fixing without question. It is price fixing without question. Next week I guess we should expect a price-fixing amendment on corn, wheat. After all, they are in short supply this year. We have a terrible situation with corn and wheat. Let me tell the Members what this is all about, pure and simple. This is about corporate greed. This is about people who are carrying the water for these major corporations who are lining the halls out here, carrying the water for them, and as my colleague pointed out, we do not see any farmers out there lobbying. Every dime of this will go to these corporations' pockets. Not a penny would be passed on to the consumer. This is the most ill-conceived, crazy amendment I think I have seen come on this House floor since I have been here. For the first time ever, the peanut program is a no cost program. We were asked to do that and we did that. The CBO estimates savings, it says, of $400 million in the next 7 years. It has already been pointed out the price support escalator is gone, the national pound quota floor has been eliminated. That makes the program market-oriented. Institutional and out-of-State quota holders are stripped of their peanut poundage quota. No more Sam Donaldsons getting checks, from the Government. That has been taken care of. Sale and lease across country lines, that has been taken care of. My growers bitterly opposed that, but we compromised and passed it. The growers who abused the program and refused to sell the peanuts on the commercial market will be kicked out of the program. No other commodity program in this country has such a severe penalty, not one, none. The price support has been reduced. Overall, the farmers are going to get about 30 percent less in income now because of this new program that has been passed. For the benefit of the House, I would like to remind the membership that these reforms were made at the expense of the farmer. When we had a hearing in Georgia with both gentleman, my colleagues from Georgia were there, and the gentlewoman from Florida was there, I asked the manufacturers, come work with us. Help us reform this program. But do Members know what? It was their way or no way. They would not move one inch and never moved one inch. Every reform that has been made has been made at the expense of the farmer. As a matter of fact, there are multinational manufacturers, and six or seven of them control 83 percent of the peanut crop, and they just want to line their pockets even more. Mr. Chairman, this is corporate greed, this is price fixing. Why do we not fix the price, as I said, on peanut butter, candy bars? Let us just fix the price on everything around here, I say to all the free market folks. I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and chairman of the Compensation, Pension, Insurance and Memorial Affairs subcommittee, I am happy to rise today in support of H.R. 3376 authorizing major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1997. H.R. 3376 demonstrates strong bipartisan support for carrying out this country's unfailing commitment to our veterans. Recognizing the inevitable shift from expensive inpatient care to more cost effective primary and outpatient care, this legislation authorizes spending for the VA's medical facilities construction projects. The committee's action continues to stress the importance of providing services for veterans in an environment that is not only more convenient and more cost effective, but improves the quality of care through increased access to routine outpatient treatment and preventative health services. I would especially like to recognize the foresight of the committee for the inclusion of directive report language authorizing the Secretary to establish an ambulatory care access point in Dothan, AL. The days of large vertically integrated hospitals as the primary mode of health care delivery are gone. Rather, in order to provide more effective and quality health care, the VA must be more flexible in bringing VA services to the veteran. Such projects, like the much-needed community-based access point in Dothan, AL, are small in scale and do not require committee authorization or further appropriation of funds. However, the need for these small scaled projects is compelling given the lack of access to veteran's health care in many rural areas across the country. Currently, the more than 38,350 veterans reside within a 50-mile radius of Dothan are forced to travel 100 miles or more to the nearest VA medical center. The long and sometimes difficult trip back home after treatment is often impossible and warrants overnight lodging. The establishment of a community-based access point in Dothan will provide routine, preventative and emergency outpatient medical services to the veterans in the southeast region of Alabama without requiring the construction of a large and costly inpatient facility. The quality of care for veterans in my district and in the surrounding areas of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida will improve significantly, while the cost for caring for these veterans will, most likely, prove more effective. Mr. Speaker, in closing, because the other body failed to take up the fiscal year 1996 construction authorization, it is incumbent upon the upper Chamber that they consider this legislation so that our veterans are not deprived of the care they deserve. I thank my friend, Mr. Hutchinson, chairman of the Hospitals and Health Care Subcommittee, and I thank my good friend, Chairman Stump, for fostering greater opportunities for veterans in many regions of the country where it is prohibitive for veterans to travel to the nearest VA facility for care. I stand in acknowledgment of their leadership on behalf of our nation's veterans and, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I want to recognize the distinguished leadership that our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], has given us, and the leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. I particularly want to recognize my ranking member on my subcommittee for his work on H.R. 1483. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3373 is a compilation of several bills reported by the Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension, Insurance and Memorial Affairs and the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing. Title I makes several changes to life insurance programs operated by VA. First, it will merge the Retired Reserve Servicemen's Life Insurance Program with the Veterans Group Life Insurance Program and extend coverage to members of the Retired and Ready Reserves. Second, it would make it easier to convert from active duty and veterans insurance programs to commercial policies by allowing those coming out of the service to go to either a veterans policy or a commercial policy. It would also allow a veteran to convert to a commercial policy at any time during the 5-year term of the VA policy. Among other things such as making it less costly to shift to whole life programs at a younger age, the bill would allow rapid use of commercial viaticle programs that buy policies at a discount from the terminally ill, thus providing much-needed cash for medical and living expenses for those who are often too sick to work. The bill would also require the services to provide additional types of insurance information to those on active duty when they make insurance choices, and finally the bill would rename the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Program as the Service- member's Group Life Insurance Program. Title II section 201 of the bill would make age limits for dependent's burial benefits in a national cemetery consistent with the rest of title 38. The bill would allow burial of dependent children up to age 23 if in school or 21 if not in school. Title II section 202 of H.R. 3373 would prohibit VA from moving the Education Service headquarters functions out of the District of Columbia. VA is proposing to move the entire service to St. Louis despite the subcommittee's expressed concerns about the dynamic nature of education programs. The committee feels strongly that VA policy and program management personnel need to work closely with the Congress, VSO's and DOD in the District to ensure that veterans get the absolute maximum out of their education benefits. The potential management benefits form locating the service at a field operation site is marginal at best and could possibly lead to further decreases in service to veterans. But despite our attempts to persuade VA from making this highly questionable move, VA has not heeded our concerns. It is unfortunate that we need to legislate in this matter, but VA continues to move ahead with plans. I want to emphasize that the bill does not prevent VA from downsizing the education staff or meeting any of the goals of the Government Performance Review Act. The bill was introduced as H.R. 3036 by the ranking member, Mr. Montgomery, and cosponsored by the chairman, Subcommittee Chairman Buyer and the former ranking member, Ms. Waters, and has received strong support from the VSO's. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and my good friend for yielding the time. H.R. 1483 will offer veterans whose claims have been denied to appeal on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error. The bill will do three things. First, it will codify the existing right of appeal at the regional office. Second, it will establish right of appeal at the board of veterans' appeals. And finally, it will provide access to the court of veterans appeals on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error. The bill received strong support from the VSO's on the grounds that clear erroneous error on the part of the VA should never be allowed to stand. VA has opposed the bill on the grounds that the right already exists through the BVA, chairmans discretionary reconciliation reconsidering process and the potential for increasing the claims backlogged, but VA was unable to provide any data supporting the concerns about potential increase in the backlog. I view this as a classic confrontation between the right of the individual and the right of the group, evidence to the contrary showing severe impact on the veterans as a whole. I must support the individual's right to redress, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 178 and to express my particular support for the veterans provisions in the bill. As chairman of the Veterans Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension, Insurance and Memorial Affairs. I am very pleased that the Budget Committee has been able to craft a bill that will allow us to make improvements in several areas of veterans benefits, while at the same time moving us further toward a balanced budget. During a recent hearing, several veterans groups expressed their support for using the savings from legislation overturning the Court of Veterans Appeals decision, Davenport versus Brown to improve veterans benefits. The benefits improvements contained in House Concurrent Resolution 178 do just that, and I thank the committee for their foresight and patriotism. This is a good bill for veterans. First it will increase total VA outlays from $37.8 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $39.9 billion in fiscal year 2002. Over the next 6 years, VA spending would total $233.3 billion which is $18.7 billion more than over the previous 6 years. This year, our budget provides $100 million more for VA medical care than requested by the President, and $5 billion more than the President over the next 6 years. For our older veterans, it strengthens the solvency of the Medicare Program and provides a 45-percent increase in spending for Medicare. Our middle-aged veterans will benefit through lower taxes and increased buying power. Their families will see increased education and entrepreneurial opportunities, and less government. Younger veterans will see a permanent $500 per child tax credit, an adoption tax credit, a repeal of the 1993 gasoline tax and improvements in health insurance and medical savings accounts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that in testimony before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, VA Secretary Jesse Brown stated, ``the President's budget would be devastating for the VA.'' The Secretary also said that the President's budget would close the equivalent of 41 hospitals, fire 60,000 employees, and deny care to as many as 1 million veterans. Further, when confronted with the facts regarding the President's budget for the VA, the Secretary likes to make a point that the President has agreed to negotiate the VA budget every year. Well, that's not good enough for me. If the President is such a strong supporter of veterans, let him put the money up front. Veterans benefits should not be negotiated. As I mentioned earlier, our bill improves several areas of veterans benefits. First, to help our severely disabled veterans, we are proposing to raise the one time automobile allowance from the current $5,500 to $10,000. That will make it easier for veterans who have lost the use of their limbs or sight to more easily afford transportation. Second, we have included legislation to extend compensation benefits to the day of death of a veteran. This may seem a small matter, but it is significant to bereaved spouses of veterans. Third, we are going to extend the period for which a surviving spouse can receive back benefits from the current 1 to a maximum of 2 years. This will partly make up for increased adjudication time at the VA which is now running about 3 years for a claim to be decided at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. We want to reward our veteran college students with an increase in their GI bill benefits by giving those who have a ``B'' average going into their senior year a scholarship. We also intend to provide an opportunity for those still on active duty to transfer from the less generous Post Vietnam Education Assistance Program [VEAP] to the current Montgomery GI bill. We'll also make it easier for veterans to become teachers by making permanent the ability to use their GI bill education benefits to pay for teaching certification. Finally, we are going to continue funding for the veterans pro bono legal representation program at the Court of Veterans Appeals. This program ensures that needy veterans with good cases are represented before the court. The program also assists the court by reducing the number of pro se cases before the court thereby reducing the time it takes the court to process claims. Mr. Chairman, it is important for veterans to compare the budgets before us today and decide for themselves whose budget is best for veterans and the Nation. I urge them to contact their elected officials and express their support for the bill. To my colleagues I say support House Concurrent Resolution 178 because by doing so, you support America's veterans and ensure the economic security of the Nation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. I thank the distinguished chairman for his comments and his support.

Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration's national security strategy is based on being able to fight two regional contingencies [MRC's] simultaneously, yet the administration has underfunded this strategy by as much as $150 billion over the next 5 years. The national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 before us today will help shore up the inadequacies of Clinton's defense budget. In staying with the congressional Republican commitment to prevent the hollowing of the Nation's military, the National Security Committee added nearly $13 billion to Clinton's request of $255 billion which is consistent with Congress' plan to balance the budget by 2002. These additional funds are primarily focused on three areas, to include quality of life enhancements for service members and their families, maintaining military readiness, and modernizing outdated weapon systems. All three of these areas are crucial if America wants to maintain a highly motivated and highly capable military, and I feel this defense keeps the country moving in this direction. While I am supportive of most provisions contained in this legislation, I am concerned about the lack of a cogent depot maintenance policy in the bill. Last year, the House supported the elimination of the 60/40 policy with the hope that the Pentagon would arrive at a sensible maintenance policy that preserves an in-house capability to support the CORE workload requirements, but also utilizes the private sector industrial base for DOD's remaining maintenance workload. This already complex industrial base/military readiness matter involving outsourcing and privatization became embroiled in Presidential politics in the aftermath of the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Act. President Clinton's unwise, and in my view, flagrant abuse of the base closure process resulted in the privatization in place concept at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Logistics Centers for political expediency in Texas and California. The Pentagon has done little to clarify this matter. Last month, Department of Defense officials testified before the National Security Committee and failed to put forth a balanced depot maintenance policy. In fact, the comments about wholesale depot privatization enraged committee members and lent credence to the 60/40 policy. Rather than clear up any confusion or ambiguity, the Pentagon's unfocused testimony forced the committee to withhold any action until conference negotiations with the Senate. The 60/40 depot-level maintenance policy is archaic and based on a public/private worksharing arrangement that has no relevance to readiness or military capability. I believe the $15 billion that the taxpayer pays annually for this purpose can be pared significantly if a sound maintenance policy is put in place. From a private sector industrial base perspective, I have a specific example in my district of just how harmful the current policy is. A private helicopter remanufacturing company has tried repeatedly to bid on depot-level maintenance for Army Blackhawk helicopters. They have a long history of performing very good work on UH-60 and CH-53E helicopters. But as a result of the Army's interpretation of this 60/40 policy, the 40 percent of the work this firm can actually bid on is being largely consumed by organizational and intermediate-level maintenance for fixed-wing aircraft. Not only is the firm in my district, that specializes in helicopter work, inhibited from competing for depot-level maintenance work on Blackhawks, but the 40 percent share set aside for the private sector is nearly fully consumed by fixed-wing work comprised of emptying ashtrays and changing windshield wiper blades. The ramifications of this haphazard policy yield virtually no industrial base benefits to support rotary-wing, or for that matter fixed-wing, aircraft. This is not a cogent industrial base policy for our national defense. Mr. Chairman, the 60/40 workload split makes even less sense today than it did when it was first adopted, and I hope this maintenance issue is examined thoroughly when the House and Senate go to conference on this legislation.

Mr. EVERETT. I also understand that the Army proposed fiscal year 1997 as a stand-alone year, followed by a 4-year multiyear procurement of the balance of the 5,769 Hellfire II missiles. Does the chairman support the Army's acquisition plan for Hellfire II and will he give full consideration of a proposed 4-year multiyear procurement Hellfire II next year?

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], in a brief colloquy regarding the Army's Hellfire II missile. It is my understanding that the Army's fiscal year 1997 budget request contains $108 million for 1,800 Hellfire II missiles. This is the first year of a plan for 7,569 missiles over a 5- year period, is that correct?

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission is involved in activities to promote tourism in the lower Chattahoochee River area, that encompasses 7 counties in Alabama and 11 counties in Georgia. The commission has been very successful in these endeavors, which prompted the National Trust for Historic Preservation to identify this commission as a model heritage tourism organization. The legislation before the House, H.R. 2064, grants congressional consent to approve the changes made by the Alabama and Georgia Legislatures in 1993 to an interstate compact. The changes made to the compact simplify the way the Historic Chattahoochee Commission appoints its board members. Currently, the 28 board members, 14 from each State, are appointed by a cumbersome process involving an historical commission or similar body of each county to make the appointment. The problem is that some counties do not have an historical organization, while other counties have several historical organizations, which has led to confusing and time consuming proceedings. This legislation amends the process by making the election of commissioners to vacant seats by majority vote of the voting members of the commission. Some members are nonvoting. Since Congress originally approved this compact back in 1978, both the Alabama and Georgia attorneys general have determined that the Historic Chattahoochee Commission cannot use the amended appointment process without the approval of Congress. This legislation is obviously supported by the States of Alabama and Georgia, and I am aware of no opposition. Mr. Speaker, these changes will certainly enable the commission to place more of their efforts on promoting tourism in this area of Alabama and Georgia, and I urge the swift adoption of this legislation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Montgomery's finest citizens and premiere member of the business community. Mr. Adolph Weil, Jr., passed away on December 12, 1995, and is survived by his wife, Jean, his three children, Jan Katherine Weil, Dr. Lauri Weil, and Adolph Weil III, and his five grandchildren. Mr. Weil was a veteran of World War II where he attained the rank of captain, before returning home to the family business. Mr. Weil, one of the principals of Weil Brothers Cotton, Inc., became known in Montgomery for his generous support for local endeavors. His philanthropic efforts were not well known, because he gave for the sake of giving, not accolades. He and his brother, Bobby, shared the Montgomery Advertiser Citizen of the Year Award in 1994. Mr. Weil was heavily involved in many forms of public service, including the Montgomery Area United Way, Jewish Federation of Montgomery, Temple Beth-Or, American Cotton Shipper Association, Atlantic Cotton Association, YMCA, and the Children's Center. Mr. Speaker, we will greatly miss Mr. Weil and his charitable efforts; I ask that the eulogy for Mr. Weil delivered by Rabbi David Baylinson be included in the Record following my remarks. Eulogy for Adolph Weil, Jr. (Delivered by Rabbi David A. Baylinson) We are gathered this noon, shocked and sadden by the sudden loss of one beloved to a myriad of people. We gather this noon to pay our last earthly respect and tokens of love to Adolph Weil, Jr. To paraphrase the words of King David at the time of his sorrow: ``Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in our community?'' Bucks was a gentleman and a gentle man with few peers. First and foremost was Jean, the love of his life. Indeed, a more beautiful love affair is not found even in the pages of a novel. Their lives were intertwined always. Now we pray that her heart will be filled with beautiful memories to bring her a measure of comfort. And his family * * * Children who not only loved him but also respected him. Children who admired him and learned from him the highest degree of ethics and their responsibility to the community. They and we all were taught by him that living is giving. You, his grandchildren * * * Do you know what a sparkle you put in his eyes every time he mentioned your name? And what a sense of pride you put into his heart because you loved him? His life was fuller because you were * * * because you wanted to be * * * such an integral part of his life. Your love of him only testifies to his loving kindness and beauty of character. Bucks was a devoted and caring brother, working so closely these many years with his brother, and he was a devoted and caring brother to his sisters. He was a brother, a friend, a partner. So close, too, to all his family members, wherever they lived and always enjoying being with them on special occasions. You, gathered here this noon, testify to a warmth of friendship, wider then any embrace could hold, and a respect for a man who has earned that respect throughout his life. So much has been said and printed these past few days about what Bucks has done for the community and his many achievements. For Bucks this was what was supposed to be as he gauged his life by the words of the poet, Browning: ``Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?'' Bucks lived by the teachings of his faith and by the words of the prophet, Micah, he quoted so often: ``And now, O Israel, what does the Lord require of thee? Only to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with they God.'' Forgive us please, Bucks, for all of this praise. It is never your wish or your style. Please understand that it helps us to alleviate some of our grief and helps to heal our broken hearts. We are all richer because Bucks was among us, and we are all the poorer because his life on earth has been taken from us. Yet, after the tears of separation have been shed, and after the shock of the sudden loss has been absorbed, there is a void to be filled, and we, we alone, can in some measure, large or small, fill that void, the psalmist has told us: ``We bring our years to an end as a tale that is told'' The story of Bucks' life is one of love, friendship, service, leadership and concern for others. We can honour that memory best by giving of ourselves as he gave of himself, of learning to love without conditions, of extending our hands in true warmth of friendship, of acts of loving kindness that that is commonly called ``charity.'' For Bucks it was always an act of loving kindness. Bucks wrote his book of life in beautiful verse. Now it is the task of the living to live up to the standards he set and take up the challenge. His soul is immortal, his memory eternal, is love without earthly bounds. ``Good night, sweet prince. And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.''

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about this program by its opponents and the national media. Very little, almost nothing, I might add, has been based on facts. Program opponents motivated primarily by big candy manufacturers and peanut butter manufacturers would lead us to believe that a candy bar or a jar of peanut butter would cost less if the peanut program was eliminated. What they do not tell us is that American consumers pay less for peanut products than they do in Canada, 14-percent less for peanuts, 10-percent less for peanut butter and 16-percent less for peanut candy. In fact, not one of these liberal consumer groups, but the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, testified before Congress that consumers were unlikely to benefit from any reduction made to the peanut program. And, in fact, the gentlewoman's claim that the program adds 33 cents of cost to the consumer is factually inaccurate; it is untrue. Reforms, the reforms and modifications made in the peanut program, should satisfy even the peanut manufacturers except for their need to add to their bottom line. This is corporate greed, pure and simple. The program has been reformed. Some of those reforms: Loan rates have been reduced by 10 percent from 678 to 610 a ton. We have program reforms such as operating at no cost to the Government. The price escalator has been eliminated. The quota floor has been eliminated. Undermarketings has been eliminated. And if any colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and these others had read the bill, quota eligibility standards have been tightened to include only true producers, not the folks living in other countries and so forth. Only true producers would be eligible for quotas. It also has $434 million in deficit reduction over 7 years. I urge a no vote on this mean-spirited amendment.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to bring to the attention of this body a historic and noteworthy anniversary. This year marks the 125th year since the founding of the Alabama Press Association [APA], the oldest statewide trade association in Alabama and one of the oldest State newspaper associations in the Nation. In 1871 as Alabama continued to recover from the ravages of the Civil War, its newspaper editors and publishers, joined by community leaders, sought new ways to promote economic growth. This was the genesis of the Alabama Press Association which actually came into being with the first statewide meeting of newspaper executives on March 17, 1871, at the Montgomery Advertiser. Since those early days, the APA has evolved from a social organization of editors and publishers to an association that has played an important role in developing the daily and weekly newspapers of Alabama and serving as a catalyst for the State's economic and cultural development. The APA worked on behalf of the citizenry of Alabama by advocating stronger public access to government records and meetings. It has pushed for the State's first statewide taxes to support public education and it spearheaded a successful effort to launch a statewide chamber of commerce. The APA played a role through many of its leaders in guiding the State through some of the important and cultural changes of the last half of the 20th century. Its officers have included some of the leading newspaper men and women in America, and its member newspapers have won the Nation's highest awards for journalistic excellence. Additionally, before coming to the Congress it was my pleasure to serve as president of the APA in 1991. Alabama and the Nation can be justly proud of the contributions and leadership of the Alabama Press Association as it continues toward another 125 years of public service.