Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to this so-called line-item veto conference report, which passed on March 27. I have been a strong supporter of a line item veto and feel that such legislation would provide the President with an effective weapon to fight wasteful spending. I have voted for several line item veto bills that I felt were constitutional. However, I did not support this legislation, as it violates the plain reading of the Constitution. In Article I, section 7, the Constitution sets out fundamental procedures for the enactment of a law. It states that every bill should be passed by both houses and then presented to the President to either sign or veto. If the bill is vetoed each house may override such a veto by two-thirds vote. The bill then becomes law once it is signed or a veto is overridden by each house of Congress. This conference report allows the President, after a bill has become a law, to go back and review that law and to pick and choose what portions of the law he desires to repeal, and to do so in an unconstitutional manner. This flies in the face of the fundamental principal of ``separation of powers'' and the ``checks and balances'' of our government. Article I, section 1, of the Constitution states that ``[a]ll legislation Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. The Supreme Court in INS versus Chadha discussed the importance of the ``separation of powers'' provisions in Article I, section 1. The court stated that [t]hese provisions of Art. I are integral parts of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. We have recently noted that ``[t]he principle of separation of powers was not simply an abstract generalization in the minds of the Framers: it was woven into the document that they drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.'' The Court further expressed that, [i]t emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative action in Art. I, sections 1, 7, represents the Framers' decisions that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a singe, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure. This conference report would allow the President, in effect, to repeal an existing law; thereby violating the provisions of Article I. The Court in Chadha held that ``[a]mendment and repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.'' The Court went further by stating that [t]he bicameral requirement, the Presentment Clauses, the President's veto, and Congress' power to override a veto were intended to erect enduring checks on each Branch and to protect the people from the improvident exercise of power by mandating certain prescribed steps. To preserve those checks, and maintain the separation of powers, the carefully defined limits on the power of each Branch must not be eroded. This highlights the importance of maintaining the legislative procedures set out by the Constitution and the separate powers the Constitution has bestowed upon the three branches of our government. Mr. President, this bill chips away at the constitutionally prescribed ``checks and balances'' set forth by our Founding Fathers. I believe that a line-item veto can be a useful weapon against wasteful spending if drafted so as to protect the fundamental procedures set out by our Constitution; however, this bill as presented cannot sustain constitutional muster.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, William Jennings Dyess, a long-time Foreign Service officer and State Department official, passed away recently at his home here in Washington. He was buried in his hometown of Troy, AL. An alumnus of the University of Alabama, where he received his B.A. and M.A. degrees and earned a Phi Beta Kappa key, Bill Dyess served for 25 years in the Foreign Service. The University of Alabama National Alumni Association recently announced that a scholarship endowment had been established in his memory. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the announcement be printed in the Record. It tells the story of a remarkable public servant whose achievements in his field will long serve as benchmarks for those who follow him into diplomatic service.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Dr. Neal R. Berte recently celebrated his 20th year as president of my undergraduate alma mater, Birmingham- Southern College. He has been, and continues to be, an outstanding spokesman, administrator, and scholarly leader of one of the Nation's very best liberal arts colleges. A native of Ohio, Dr. Berte and his wife, Anne, have four grown children and two grandchildren. He obtained his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees all at the University of Cincinnati. A member of Phi Beta Kappa honor society, he also holds honorary doctoral degrees from Birmingham-Southern and Cincinnati. He served as an associate professor at the University of Alabama from 1970 through 1974 and as the university's vice president for educational development from 1974 until 1976. He also served as dean of the university's New College from 1970 until 1976 when, on February 1, he became president of Birmingham- Southern College. Dr. Berte is recognized as one of the most accomplished, successful educational professionals of our time. Under his stewardship, Birmingham-Southern's endowment has increased from $14 million to $82 million and its student population, made up of some of the brightest high school graduates in the State and Nation, has more than doubled. Acceptance of its graduates to medical and law schools is among the highest in the South and its outstanding faculty has increased by 66 percent during his tenure as president. He has also overseen the construction of eight new campus buildings. The campus of Birmingham-Southern, known as The Hilltop, has an atmosphere of learning and of intellectual achievement. This atmosphere is reflected in the fact that the school is consistently recognized as one of the top national liberal arts colleges by such prestigious publications as U.S News and World Report, National Review, Money Magazine, the Insider's Guide to the Colleges, Southern Magazine, and the Princeton Review. The National Review's College Guide has said, ``An ambiance of graciousness, a tradition of academic excellence, and close student- faculty relations have made Birmingham-Southern College one of the standout liberal arts colleges in the South * * * '' U.S. News calls it a `` * * * trailblazer for higher education of the future.'' These kinds of accolades are a direct reflection of the school president's strong commitment, total dedication, and superb leadership skills. Birmingham-Southern College's graduates of all ages speak often of the deep pride and affection they have for their alma mater. Indeed, the school enjoys an uncommonly strong level of support among its loyal and generous alumni. Even those of us who were students there long before Dr. Berte's arrival 20 years ago have enjoyed a renewed sense of pride in Birmingham-Southern since he became president. Birmingham-Southern does not have a football program, but its basketball team has won two National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics [NAIA] championships in the past 7 years, most recently in 1995. Its baseball team has advanced to the NAIA World Series on three occasions. Dr. Berte's many honors and awards include his induction into the Alabama Academy of Honor; his selection as Birmingham's Citizen of the Year; his selection as one of the 100 Most Effective College Presidents by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education; and his recognition as one of America's Leaders in Higher Education by the American Council on Education. Birmingham's morning newspaper, the Post-Herald, carried a front-page feature on his life and career on February 6 and an editorial on his tenure at Birmingham-Southern the next day. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these articles be printed in the Record. I want to commend and congratulate Dr. Neal Berte for his impeccable leadership, clear vision, and total dedication to the field of higher education in general and to Birmingham-Southern in particular. As a proud alumnus of the college, I have no doubt that his next 20 years there will be just as productive and vibrant as his first. It could not be in more capable hands.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am proud to pay tribute today to a dear friend to me and my wife, Elizabeth Ann, Diane Kaseman. Diane is a long-time employee of the Senate Service Department, where her friendliness, dedication, and charming personality have become familiar to many Members of this body and our staffs. Unfortunately for us, she will be retiring from her position in the Service Department after an incredible 43 years of service to the U.S. Congress. Diane Kaseman is one of those individuals who takes extreme pride in her work and who truly loves the Senate as an institution. She and her loyal canine pets have become welcome sights to the many hundreds of staff members who routinely seek assistance from the Service Department. She never fails to express genuine concern when one of us, our spouses, or our staff members is under the weather. Her kind words and thoughtful notes never fail to improve our spirits. Diane is a Rochester, NY native, and began her Capitol Hill career as a receptionist for the late Congressman and Senator Kenneth Keating of New York. She began work on March 27, 1953. Eventually, she moved over to the Senate, where she served on the staff of former Kentucky Senator John Sherman Cooper. Since then, she has served under 11 Senate Sergeants-at-Arms, working with the service and computer facilities. Not surprisingly, Diane has devoted much of her time over the years to volunteer and community service activities. Early on in her career, she helped establish the Senate Staff Club. Since its founding in 1954, it has sponsored a wide variety of social, civic, and philanthropic projects. She served as the organization's first treasurer. Today, it has over 3,000 members. One of the Staff Club's major activities has been its blood donor drives, begun in 1978. Diane has been a driving force behind this campaign and has dedicated many hours of hard work and energy to see that the Senate meets its goals. My wife has worked with Diane on many of these blood drives. In 1981, she received the Sid Yudain Award, which recognized ``her dedication to the well-being of her coworkers and for the generous expenditure of her time, talent, and personal resources in the service of the congressional community.'' These few words are perhaps the best that can be offered to summarize her outstanding career and selfless service. Diane Kaseman is truly a Senate institution who will be sorely missed after she leaves the Senate at the end of this month. I join my colleagues in thanking her, commending her, and wishing her all the best as she embarks upon a well-earned retirement.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I just found out that Senator Rockefeller is going to vote for the conference report. Senator Gorton has said that Senator Rockefeller could never vote for a bill if it had a cap in it, a definite cap. And as I read it--now, maybe he can, in some way or another, explain this language --we have a language on page 10 of the report relating to punitive damages. First, the language in the report says the ``greater'' of two times the sum of the amount awarded to a claimant for economic loss and noneconomic loss, or $250,000. That is not a definite cap because the amount of economic loss and noneconomic loss is a variable. But language immediately thereafter says, ``special rule.'' This applies to the rule on punitive damages for small businesses where these corporations have 25 employees or less. I might add that this language applies also to individuals. The ``special rule'' provides that punitive damages shall not exceed the ``lesser'' of two times the economic loss and noneconomic loss, or $250,000. So punitive damages cannot exceed, in any event, $250,000. So that is a definite, established cap. I am not going to hold Senator Rockefeller to that since he did not make the statement to me. He must have made that statement to Senator Gorton who is present on the floor. I would not want to put him in an embarrassing situation. But I think this special rule shows very definitely that there is a cap in the bill. Now, that also points out that a lot of language in this bill is slyly inserted, and so craftily placed, that I think some of its key features have escaped a great number of people's attention. That is true with regard to the biomaterials provision. The biomaterials provisions, to which Senator Lieberman refers regarding raw materials, also contains language regarding component parts. There are numerous implants that have component parts. I mentioned before that I have a pacemaker which has numerous component parts. There is a battery, and there are various wires that go down into the chambers of the heart that causes electrical charges to emit; it has various sensors and a computer that records the history of my heartbeats over a period of time. When doctors check it, they can check and see whether or not there was some unusual rhythm or unusual activity taking place. Basically under the provisions of title II, on an implant that has component parts, there is complete immunity in regard to the supplier of the component parts, or the raw materials of an implant. Now, there is an exception in the event the manufacturer of the component part is also the manufacturer of the entire device or also the seller. But most medical devices are made from component parts, such as the batteries, and people furnish those separately. Title II gives complete immunity to suppliers with no chance to even discover whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the supplier. It is interesting to see where the crafty language is written. It indicates that ``implant'' means--and this is the definition on page 17 of the conference report-- a medical device that is intended by the manufacturer of a device to be placed into a surgically or naturally formed or existing cavity of the body for a period of at least 30 days, or to remain in contact with bodily fluids, or internal human tissue through a surgically produced opening for a period of less than 30 days. Well, what is less than 30 days? I would assume that less than 30 days could mean 2 seconds or 1 second. It is very craftily designed. What is a surgically produced opening? Well, there is no definition in here, but a surgically produced opening would appear to me to be an opening in which you use surgical tools. Of course, that would mean that you normally think of a knife, of a scalpel, or of something like that. But what about intravenous materials, one of these locks where you tie it into you? You have devices where they put it in and out of your body, and they can put fluids into the body such as a blood transfusion. Consider a hypodermic needle--is that a surgical tube? You have a situation where we find that title could have some applicability with a blood transfusion. We should consider where a blood transfusion occurs, and we know that blood has to be highly inspected and is subject to the highest standard of care because of AIDS and other matters. This bill is designed toward an interpretation that could mean that AIDS in blood is subject--where someone has made a mistake, who has been negligent or otherwise--to the provisions and the limitations and protections that are put within this bill. It is very carefully crafted, as I pointed out yesterday, in inserting a comma in the definitions section of durable goods, now within the purview of the report is any type of a product that has a life of more than 3 years--baby cribs, lawn mowers, toasters, or virtually any type of kitchen appliance. There are a great number of provisions in the bill that disturb me, in particular, the way that they are designed to favor the manufacturer or the seller, and it puts the injured party at such a disadvantage. For example, there is the misuse or alteration provision, which provides that in a product liability action, the damages of a defendant will be reduced by the percentage of responsibility for a claimant's harm attributable to the misuse or alteration. But I see problems where there could phantom defendants--the phantom defendants where there is nobody there to be held responsible--and they can try to invoke the several liability provisions in the report as to noneconomic damages. These phantoms are the ones that are all at fault and there is nobody left responsible for a claimant's injury. Then we have a situation in regard to employer and coemployee, as to whether or not they might have misused or altered, or were at fault. So, in order to leave the impression on the jury, this bill requires that that be the last issue that is presented to a jury, because when they leave and go back to the jury room to decide, that is the last thing that they heard. So they are trying to put it off--the negligence or the lack of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer--and impose it on someone else and to give it to that person just as he goes into the jury room as the last thing that they hear that will be predominantly on their mind. Is that fair to the claimant? There are numerous other aspects of that which disturb me. I suppose one of the things that I just cannot understand at all in regard to this is how--if it is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander? And they exempt business losses. One business suing another business can bring his suit for commercial losses, losses of profit, unlimited amount, unlimited amount relative to punitive damages, and different statutes of limitation. The Uniform Commercial Code, I assume, is uniform everywhere. I understand there are a few differences in it. But in our State in Alabama, you have a 4-year statute of limitations in regard to the Uniform Commercial Code. The conference report imposes a shorter 2-year statute of limitations. The Senate-passed bill contained an exception to the 2-year statute- of-limitation provision stating that if a civil action under the bill is stayed or enjoined, the statute of limitation is suspended or tolled until the end of the injunction. That provision was deleted from the conference report. Is that fair? I think not. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller, I am sure, has endeavored to live up to his commitments to not expand the conference report, to the best of his knowledge, but being a nonlawyer, I am afraid some of his advisers who are writing it did not explain to him the vast expansion of this report over what the Senate passed before. There are numerous changes, subtle changes in many instances--for example, the changing of the word ``and'' to ``or,'' which greatly expanded the bill. The proponents are referring to the various special interests who have concerns about this legislation. You know to whom they are referring--trial lawyers and advocates on behalf of the American consumer. But there are a lot of other special interests that are involved, particularly those who have been endeavoring to save money and to make a bigger profit. In that category could be many elements of business from manufacturers to wholesalers, distributors, retail sellers and also including the insurance industry. These can certainly be called special interests. This report's section on punitive damages has, with regard to small businesses, a provision about ``the lesser amount'' and therefore providing a maximum cap on punitive damages of $250,000 if a business has less than 25 employees. I doubt if there is any company that has 25 employees that does not carry substantial excess liability insurance over and above $250,000. Most businesses carry liability insurance in large amounts, and the relationship of employees to the policy of insurance that is carried, that protects them, is not really germane at all. The conference report is greatly expanded by lowering by 25 percent, from 20 to 15 years, the statute of repose. For example, the statute of repose will apply to a bridge. Most contractors' negligence and the defects in the production of a bridge do not occur during the first 5 years, 10 years, or even 15 years of a bridge's use. A defect in a part or component product of a bridge manifests itself by a bridge collapsing, or giving way after a period of time in excess of 15 years. Under the definition of the term ``products,'' it is anything that is used in the construction of a bridge under this bill, and there are many component products that are manufactured for the purpose of lasting many, many years. So, as we see in particular mountainous areas where bridges span big gaps, or cross between mountains, you will have a real danger after 15 years of a collapse and under the statute of repose of 15 years, an insured person or his estate is outright prohibited from bringing a suit to determine fault. Also, consider that it is 15 years from the date of the delivery to the first purchaser that the statute begins to run. There are many consumer items, products that are delivered to the first purchaser, which is not the consumer, that may stay on the shelf 2 or 3 years. What do we have? The statute running even sooner against unwary consumers. We should also consider workplace products and their safeguards that are supposed to protect innocent workers. What you protect is a person, a farmer from losing a hand in a corn machine, which harvests corn. Or you can have any type of other situations where there is an absence of or defect in safeguards associated with machinery. I have charts to show the various items of where safeguards are left off. Consider a plastic injection molding machine or a tractor, manufactured more than 15 years prior to the accident where a 34-year-old person was killed, and where the manufacturer failed to equip it with rollover protection system. Consider a punch press which lacked guards and safety devices. All of these items illustrate how an innocent person could be adversely affected by the 15 year statute of repose contained in this conference report. Then the statute of repose has some language that says ``not caused by a toxic material.'' The issue arises in regard to whether or not, for example, asbestos is a toxic harm or toxic material. There are various and sundry people who would say a position can be taken that asbestos is not a toxin or a poison, but that breathing it, is unlike poisons like chlorine or benzene. They say that asbestos is simply a rock fiber and asbestosis, the most prevalent asbestos-related disease, is caused not from toxic interaction between the asbestos fibers and cells but, instead, because the needle-like asbestos fibers pierce and destroy air sacs in the lungs. It takes generally 15 or 20 years of exposure to asbestos material before the disease develops. But under the statute of repose, you do not have a right to bring any suit. You are forever barred from bringing a suit after the passage of 15 years from the date of delivery to the first purchaser. Now tell me this is fair. This, to me, is a great expansion of the conference report from the Senate-passed bill. But let us look at some of the other expansions in this report. The report has a change of a slight word about a standard of liability other than negligence. For years and years, product liability bills have excluded natural gas and electricity, but this report comes back from conference with a change in language providing that if natural gas or electricity is subject to a different standard than negligence, then it is subject to all of provisions of this legislation--this is a vast expansion. Now, natural gas and electricity are looked upon, in practically all States, to be highly dangerous and are subject to laws that say that if they are sold, the producer and seller must be held to the highest standard of care in order to protect the public. But the conference report contains an expansion for the first time in about 18 years. Was this merely an inadvertence or was it intended? Natural gas is odorless, and producers have to add a fluid to it for people to smell it in order to detect it. It is generally referred to as ``skunk juice.'' But if somebody fails to add it or fails to put the proper amount in and a devastating accident occurs, are those in the production chain allowed to reap the benefits of this legislation's protections, say, as to the caps on punitive damages? Is that not a great expansion of the conference report? I just wonder how many homes are heated with natural gas, and there is a particular case that just occurred recently, a Seminole natural gas case out in Texas where there was an explosion and three people were killed and many were injured. Punitive damages were awarded by a jury. Obviously, that brought to mind a very crafty, highly intelligent drafter, who now says we can take care of similar situations by a little sleight of pen and make these type of these cases come within the ambit of the bill. I am sure that the distinguished proponents of this legislation did not realize or never were told about this particular change, but it greatly expands the bill, make no mistake about it. Consider the provision regarding negligent entrustment. There was a provision in the Senate-passed bill that said that the limitations of this bill shall not apply to any suit brought for negligent entrustment. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving had insisted that that provision be in the Senate bill. That is where you have the State dram shop laws, where liability is provided where tavern or bar owner sells whiskey to a minor or to a drunk who then drives a car under drunken conditions and kills an innocent victim. Under the Senate-passed bill, a defendant was not provided with the limitations of this bill such as the caps on punitive damages. But now a defendant could come within the limitations contained in the conference report. Gun dealers, who have been subject to negligent entrustment actions on the State level for selling guns to known incompetents or criminals, would now benefit from the subtle change between the Senate-passed bill and the conference report which is now before the Senate. The negligent entrustment provision was moved from one place in the Senate-passed bill to another place in the conference report, and this subtle change allows defendants in negligent entrustment actions to avail themselves of the limitations in this conference report. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving are utterly opposed to this report and are urging Senators to vote against cloture. Then there is the issue of the statute of limitations of 2 years where a court orders an injunction, like a company goes into bankruptcy and you, therefore, are enjoined by law from filing a product liability suit. Under the bill that was passed by the Senate, that time did not count--the statute of limitations was suspended or tolled. It said that that time did not count on your statute of limitation running of 2 years. But, by sleight of hand, it is removed from the bill and it is no longer there. The President, in his veto message that he sent, points that out. I had read the bill, and I had not discovered that. I went back and read it again, and I saw how craftily that had been omitted from the conference. So, therefore, if your company goes into bankruptcy, there is an automatic stay against being able to file a civil suit. Therefore, that provision that gave you protection against the running of time is removed. I mentioned a definition of durable goods, how the adding of a ``comma'' in the durable goods section now brings in many, many household goods--baby cribs, lawn mowers, razors, electric razors that are used--any type of thing that has a projected life of 3 years is now in it. Before in it, it had to be related to a business. No longer does it. But it includes household goods that are there. There is another change about remediation relating to Superfund in regards to the environment. I am not sure that I understand it, but it was changed for some reason. The conferees did not make these changes unless they are trying to give some sort of protection to some company. Another change to me that was unusual was the conferees changed the name of the bill. When the bill was in the Senate and passed the Senate it was called the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995. I made a speech about it and said that was the biggest misnomer and pointed out the unfair provisions. For example, business can sue for commercial loss, and they are not subject to these provisions. The report exempts business in their suits against each other. But they contain provisions that it would apply to individuals, to injured parties. But if you are an injured business, you can sue for loss of profits, you can sue and are not subject to the bill's limitations. For example, you have a statute of limitations for 2 years here, while in most States the statute of limitations, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is anywhere from 4 to 6 years, just for example. Business suits are not subject to it. Yet the biggest verdicts that have been rendered relative to punitive damages are business cases. Pennzoil versus Texaco and so on. But anyway the proponents changed the name to the Commonsense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996. I just do not believe that it is common sense or fairness either way. I think it is a misnomer. Is it common sense to include governmental entities, the Department of Defense, the GSA, and subject them to the provisions of this, but not subject business by allowing them to be able to sue for their commercial losses? But does it make common sense that in this time of deficits where we are trying to reduce Government spending, to put the Federal Government at a disadvantage as regards this bill? The Department of Defense has helicopters, tanks, trucks, et cetera. Almost all products that the military buys are built with the idea of having a long life. But does it make common sense, in these days, to have the Government subjected to the statute of repose of 15 years? Does it make sense, in these days of where we are trying to take care of local governments and not to have unfunded mandates, to impose this bill's limitations upon governmental entities? Does it make sense, common sense, to allow them to not subtract time from bankruptcy from a statute of limitation? Does it make common sense not to show in a trial in chief that the engineer who designed a railroad bridge was a known alcoholic, and the company knew it, and they still did not take steps to review his works, and a bridge on a railroad collapses? I mean, let us go down the list relative to commonsense matters. But this idea of fairness is a smokescreen for patent unfairness. When you get movements, say, started, and the questioning of all the trial lawyers, therefore it gives you an opportunity not to just maybe address one issue or two issues, but it addresses all of these issues that you have lost cases on. So therefore you want to protect the insurance company and you start adding and adding. I think there is also the question of fairness where the issue of a separate trial on punitive damages is requested. If a separate trial has been requested, it is automatically granted. But the report says you cannot show the conduct of the defendant which exhibits a conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of others. That is the standard in this report that allows for punitive damages. A claimant cannot show that type of conduct in the trial in chief for compensatory damages--that is the trial for economic nor noneconomic damages. Remember noneconomic damages include pain and suffering that may be caused by conscious, flagrant indifference to one's safety. Is that fair to a person who has been badly disfigured, scarred, or suffered a loss of limb by a product whose manufacturer knew of its defect but refused to take steps to recall the product. I would like to give this illustration of commercial loss. There are two commercial airplanes, one of them Delta, one of them American. They collide and we will just say here, for a hypothetical viewpoint, the American is at fault. The passengers that are killed in any one of them are subject to the limitations of this act. But Delta can sue for the loss of profits which are not limited and can have a different statute of repose or statute of limitations; it can sue with no limit on punitive damages for their commercial loss relative to this accident. But the passengers are limited under the provisions of this report. Is it fair that businesses have a double standard? If it is good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander. But why do the proponents exclude civil actions for commercial loss? That shows how one sided this legislation is.

Mr. HEFLIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. HEFLIN. If that plane falls on Yankee Stadium, and has killed or injured people--they are bound by the limitations of this act. But the owner of Yankee Stadium can sue for the loss of profits due to the destruction of his grandstand. None of the provisions pertain to him. So this is a grossly unfair bill, and it does not make common sense. The conference bill greatly expands the Senate passed bill. It is extreme in its provisions. It denies an injured party rights. It is particularly harmful to women in title II's provisions regarding biomaterial suppliers, giving a complete immunity or bar to suit to such suppliers. I wish I had time to go into all of that, and I urge them to review title II carefully. I urge that my colleagues vote against cloture on this bill.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am proud to announce that Alabama's own Jeremy Royal is the recent recipient of Wendy's High School Heisman Trophy. Young Jeremy is a senior at Altamont High School in Birmingham, where he is valedictorian of the class of 1996. This is a truly remarkable honor, since Jeremy was one of over 8,000 nominees for the national award. The High School Heisman Trophy recognizes not only athletic achievement, but also all-around scholarship and citizenship, all of which Jeremy possesses in huge quantities. He is truly one of the leaders of his generation as we head into the next century. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the school paper, the Altamont News, be printed in the Record following my remarks. It tells of the remarkable achievements of Jeremy Royal which led to his selection as the High School Heisman Trophy winner. I join his family, friends, teachers, coaches, and school officials in congratulating him and wishing him all the best for what appears to be a bright and limitless future.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, long-time Montevallo, AL mayor Ralph Sears passed away on February 14, 1996 at the age of 73. A native of Nebraska, the young World War II veteran had come to Montevallo in 1948 to teach broadcasting courses at Alabama College, now the University of Montevallo. It was said that he had a golden voice, and he originally was lured to the south to teach a year or so and then move on. Thankfully for Montevallo, he never got around to moving on. Instead, he went on to serve for 16 years as a member of the city council and then for 24 years as mayor. During his nearly half-century in his adopted city, Ralph Sears and his wife, Marcia, raised three children; opened radio station WBYE, located between Calera and Montevallo; and bought and published two weekly newspapers, one of which was the Shelby County Reporter. As mayor, he came to be seen as an uncommon friend to his constituents. He accomplished things which had a direct impact on their daily lives. He saw that tall horse-and-buggy curbs and crumbling sidewalks were replaced by lower curbs, handicap ramps, flowering trees in planters, and litter cans. He oversaw the building of a 40-acre park with ball fields, playgrounds, picnic tables, walking trail, gazebo, recreation building, and Scout hut. He worked with black citizens to devise a district voting system that assured their representation on the council years before a Federal court decision ordered municipal governments to take such action. Mayor Sears was also credited with constructing a sewage treatment plant and modern fire station. He spent some fairly exciting times in the Pacific theatre during World War II. He served in Tokyo and in the Philippines with General Douglas MacArther. He and Marcia would customarily travel around the world, to wherever news was breaking or about to break. They celebrated Alaska's statehood in Juneau; visited South Africa on the brink of revolution in 1986; and saw the other side of the Iron Curtain before glasnost turned it into rust. Mayor Sears was active in the World Council of Mayors; past chairman of the Shelby County Mayors Association; and president of the Montevallo Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce, and board of Shelby Youth Services. Ralph Sears was truly an institution in Montevallo; he was involved in the city's educational, religious, news media, and, of course, its governing bodies. He was a gentleman's gentleman who believed deeply in the principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. He was an honest, fair, and moral person--a progressive and a visionary who believed the American way was the right way. At the time of his death, one of the projects he was working on was the establishment of a section of Montevallo as an Alabama Village. The State and the University of Montevallo are trying to create a community similar to Jamestown in Williamsburg, VA, and the city has committed funds to buy 115 acres for the project. Hopefully, this village will some day stand as a monument to his life and work. I extend my sincerest condolences to the Sears family in the wake of its tremendous loss. His legacy is one that will last for many, many decades into the future.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Harry Moore Rhett, Jr., a long-time community leader and member of one of Huntsville, Alabama's most prominent families, died on February 3, 1996 at his antebellum home in Huntsville. During his long career, Rhett served as chairman of the city of Huntsville Gas Utility Board; chairman of the city of Huntsville Water Utility Board; chairman of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation; chairman of the Randolph School Board of Trustees; and chairman of the board of governors of the Heritage Club. In addition, he had served as president of the Huntsville-Madison County Chamber of Commerce; the Huntsville Rotary Club; the Huntsville Industrial Expansion Committee; and the Twickenham Historic Preservation District Association. He was chairman of the board of control of Huntsville Hospital; the Madison County Board of Registrars; and the Marshall Space Flight Center Community Advisory Committee. It is difficult to imagine any citizen serving his community with more energy, pride, and dedication than did Harry Rhett, Jr. His devotion to his community was total and unwavering. As an avid athlete, hunter, and sportsman, he was the founder and master of the Mooreland Hunt, a local fox-hunting group. He was a graduate of Culver Military Academy; Washington and Lee University; and Harvard University business school. He served as an army officer in Europe during World War II. Harry Rhett, Jr. was one of those rare individuals who truly embodied the unique ideals upon which our country was founded. He achieved great financial and personal success, yet served with humility and a spirit of generosity. His efforts and work contributed significantly to the tremendous growth of the Huntsville area during his life-time. I extend my sincerest condolences to the Rhett family in the wake of its tremendous loss. I hope they, like most citizens of this area, will find solace in continuing to enjoy the fruits of Harry's labor, which are all around them, for many, many years to come.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Huntsville, AL's morning newspaper, the Huntsville News, will publish its last edition on Friday, March 15, 1996. The News was founded 32 years ago by local business people as a weekly, but became a daily paper within only a few months. In 1968, it was sold by the owners to Advance Publications, which also owns Huntsville's afternoon paper, the Huntsville Times. The Huntsville News published its first edition on January 8, 1964. It introduced itself to its Rocket City readers with the headline: ``New Communications Capsule Blasts Off.'' The original owners were James Cleary, a Huntsville attorney; John Higdon, the former manager of a local television station; and Thomas A. Barr, an electrical engineer. The paper was printed on its own press, an offset press which was one of the most modern in the business. Less than 2 months after it began publishing, it went to a twice-weekly schedule, and in August 1964, it became a 6-day daily, publishing every day except Sunday. Stoney Jackson was the first editor of the News. At one time, he was a contestant on ``The $64,000 Question'' television quiz show, and became famous when he revealed cheating on the famous game show. Other editors were Sid Thomas, Hollice Smith, Dave Langford, Tom Lankford, and Lee Woodward, who has been editor since 1977. Ironically, Woodward, who first came to work for the paper in 1972, had already planned his retirement for this March before the announcement about the News. Before he joined the News, Woodward, a native of Arab, AL, had worked for the Huntsville Times, the News Courier, Alabama Courier, and Limestone Democrat, all three newspapers published in Athens, where he grew up. He had also worked at the Gadsden Times. He is now serving as president of the Alabama Press Association and has been on the Alabama Newspaper Advertising Service Board of Directors. Altogether, he has enjoyed 42 years in the newspaper business. I want to congratulate everyone who has been involved with the publication of the Huntsville News over the last 32 years, particularly the current editor, Lee Woodward, who has performed superbly in an exceedingly difficult position. The newspaper has been an authoritative source of information and insight into the issues and news of the day, and its loss is an extremely sad one for the Huntsville area. Its sharp writing, lucid clarity, and professional objectivity each morning will be sorely missed by its many readers. It has performed its mission well and leaves a tremendous journalistic legacy to the citizens of this vibrant area.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of misinformation about the peanut program. It is a very complicated program, but it is a cost-effective and consumer-oriented program. In the bill that is before us, the underlying bill, there is substantial reform. We have a reform peanut bill that is before us. It is reformed in a great number of ways. It will have the effect of lowering the cost of the peanut program to the extent that it is a no- net-cost program. It is not going to cost the Government. Over the years, the peanut program has cost the Government about $13 million a year. This past year, the cost has increased, but the peanut program is essentially very little cost to the taxpayer. The quota will be reduced by as much as 28 percent. Therefore, this change alone demonstrates significant reform. Frankly, I said, in my judgment, it went too far, but it prevailed on the Republican side. That is what they wanted to do, and they felt like that was the thing to do. I still believe that the reforms go too far. I do not like it, but it has been reformed. So all these figures that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is using do not show the reformation that has taken place. His bill will basically kill the peanut program. Actually, a similar amendment to his in the House was estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to cost the program $110 million in the first year alone, whereas the reform bill in the package before us in the Senate is a no- net cost. In effect, we are talking about a cost to the Government of $110 million in the first year under the Santorum amendment. The amendment that Senator Santorum offers would bring the support and the market price below the cost of production, making financing impossible and driving farmers out of the business and reducing the supply to consumers. Two separate studies by the farm credit system shows that basically what he is doing will mean that somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of peanut farmers will not be able to get financing the first year. And then in the remaining years, none of them could get financing relative to this. This would leave the industry with a significant reduction in supply. I have some charts. This is a bag of salted peanuts. It sells for 20 cents, 23 cents, and 7 cents. That is 50 cents. The farmer gets 7 cents. The manufacturer gets 23 cents. The retailer gets 20 cents. That is 99 percent peanuts. I do not know what else you add to it. I suppose you add a little salt. And maybe you can cook them a little bit in peanut oil, which is a good oil relative to it. Whoever heard of one of these bags of peanuts selling for anything like the bottled drinks, like the colas? When they first started out talking about putting a 1-cent tax on them--it never materialized in that manner. Instead, they have always been increased in multiples of 5. The price used to be 10 cents, and now we find soft drinks being 50 cents, 55 or 60 cents. How are you going to save any money on a bag of peanuts when the farmer gets that little? Down here you have peanut butter. The peanut butter here contains 90 percent peanuts. This particular jar sells for $2.08. As it is, that is what we picked out in the store. There is a study by Purdue University, and they went out and picked out six cities to sample. The price varied for a jar of peanuts of the same size; I believe it was 18 ounces. It varied from $3.17 down to the lowest at a $1.23 a jar. We are going to show you a chart later showing what it cost the manufacturers to produce peanut butter and make a profit. For the School Lunch Program, manufacturers sell peanut butter and obviously make a profit at about 80 cents a jar, compared to an overall commercial retail average of $1.83. The manufacturer's cost is what they sell to the School Lunch Program, and they make money on that at 80 cents a jar. Now, M&M's. We have here plain M&M's and peanut M&M's. The consumer pays the same retail price, ``disputing what candy manufacturers have been saying about the effect of peanuts on consumer prices.'' They sell for the same thing. No difference whatsoever when you go into the market. All right. Here we have Hershey. Bear Stearns, which is a leading investment house, on September 18, issued a new alert relative to Hershey Food Corp., and they upgraded it from neutral, to ``buy.'' Bear Stearns says: ``Hershey will be a major beneficiary of several legislative and regulatory reform measures expected to be put into effect in the near future; namely, the phaseout of Government price support for sugar and peanuts.'' And on another page of this, Bear Stearns said--and this is information they sent out to their investors--``Phase out support for sugar and peanuts. As a new part of the farm legislation being hammered out, the U.S. Government could gradually phase out price supports for sugar and peanuts.'' Bear Stearns is making their stock recommendation based on the elimination of the Price Support Program. We expect this bill to go into effect in 1996. ``Such measures would lead to substantial margin improvements for Hershey, whose chocolate operations consumes huge quantities of these two commodities, sugar and peanuts.'' It goes on relative to profit margins for share-holders and other stock aspects. Now, several years ago, there was a GAO study pertaining to this, and they said, regarding the support price, there was a possibility of it meaning lower costs to the consumer. Yet, when they testified before the House regarding their report, they came up with a very changed and realistic thing. The GAO basically stated in testimony that by ``consumer,'' they did not mean the final consumer of the product, but the first buyer of the peanuts to make them into candy or peanut butter. Further, GAO admitted that it could be zero that the homemaker would ever see of that savings. The GAO also stated that they had interviewed both small and large manufacturers of peanut products and were told that they may not pass the cost savings directly on to the final consumer of peanut products, but that they could develop some new product lines with a lower support price. I want to show you the history of what has happened relative to farmer price and retail price. Here are the various things. The support price is in blue on the chart here, and the red is farm prices, and green the retail price. Over the years, the farm price has always been above the support price. That has been consistent throughout. The loan rate has not been used much. Look at the difference as to what the manufacturers and the retailers make, in regards to retail price versus what the farmer makes. Let us see if we cannot get that chart now pertaining to the cost of the manufacturing. This is from USDA. This chart shows the manufacturers' cost. The manufacturers are able to make and sell peanut butter to the USDA School Lunch Program at 81 cents a pound, while consumers pay more than twice that amount for the very same peanut butter in grocery stores. The retail price illustrated in this chart is actually below the retail average. In some places, the retail price is over $3. As I indicated earlier, 90 percent of what is in a jar of peanut butter is peanuts. They may have added a little salt and oil and other things pertaining to that. Now we talked about prices paid by the School Lunch Program versus commercial retail. Let us now turn to the chart on the comparative prices in cities across the world. Again, USDA is the source of this information. In the United States, the average price as of that date-- and they vary according to the date--is $2.10. In Mexico, it is $2.55. In Canada $2.72. The argument has been made that peanut butter produced in Canada, or any foreign country, is made with the cheaper, world market peanuts. This chart illustrates Hong Kong, Paris, and Tokyo. The U.S. peanut butter prices are the lowest in the world. I point that out. Let us look at Canada. I will not attempt to quote this French, but they have labeling on this Canadian peanut butter. In Canada, the retail price is $2.99 and in the United States it is $2.21 on that particular date and location. This example even takes into account the exchange rate. Here we have a Snickers bar. They say they are going to pass on to the consumer savings on Snickers bars. Everybody knows Snickers is packed full of peanuts. But when you get down to it, it actually only has 2 cents worth of peanuts in it. The retail price for this Snickers bar is 55 cents. Furthermore, the sugar in a Snickers bar is only 3 cents. This information is from a reliable source, a director of quality and supply of Nestle's Chocolate and Confections, who made this statement as of the 18th day of June 1995. If the peanut price is reduced what portion will a consumer see in regards to reduced retail price. I say the consumer will see no reduction in the retail price. Now, foes of the peanut program have been putting out a lot of misinformation about new farmers, that they are not getting into the program. Of course, there is basically not a great number of farmers that are in the program--somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000. However, we have seen a steady increase of new farmers that have gone into the peanut program. Actually, the peanut program is easier for a new farmer to access than is the cotton, wheat or corn program. In order to participate in these commodity programs, a farmer must produce that crop for 3 to 5 years building a base before they can participate. Really, when you get down to it, ``quota'' means no more than just base, relative to that. So the argument that peanut production is left to an exclusive group and therefore nobody else can get into the market is misleading. This chart illustrating program participation, using USDA figures, demonstrates that new farmers do have access to peanut production. The other argument, or criticism that is made, is that peanut quota holders do not produce their quota and instead lease, is also misleading. Let us compare it to the other crops. Here we have from the U.S. Bureau of Census: In the peanut industry, there are more farmers who own their land and do not rent than in wheat, soybeans or cotton. This is the percentage of those that rent. The reasons that an individual may rent can be all sorts of things. Say a widow only has Social Security, her husband is dead, she wants to rent the quota, but the critics say there is something wrong with that.

Mr. HEFLIN. I will yield at the end of my remarks. This chart illustrates the situation relative to wheat, soybeans and cotton, pertaining to the issue of owner-operated and rented. There are some who do rent. However, in this bill, there are provisions that would do away with some of the public entities who own peanut quota, but to do away with the concept of the right to lease one's land, and criticizing those that do, seems to me that we are losing sight of the overall situation pertaining to widows, children and others who have, over the years, rented their land, or rented their quota. That is a distinction we ought to certainly look at. Now, food safety. We want to show that American peanuts have all sorts of safety tests. There are certain prohibited chemicals that domestic producers cannot use in the production of peanuts. Producers in foreign countries do not have these same restrictions on pesticides that domestic producers must conform with. Today, under GATT, 74 percent of the peanuts allowed into the American edible market come from Argentina. Yet, 50 percent of the peanuts that come in from Argentina cannot pass FDA tests in regards to pesticide residues. They are listed here--I cannot pronounce all of these--including pirimiphos-methyl. And then China--the two leading sources of foreign produced peanuts they are talking about is in Argentina and China--all Chinese peanuts coming into this country contain pesticide residues that have been banned for in this country. They cannot use these chemicals, yet these chemicals are being used in Argentina and China and are then exported to the United States. China also has a particular disease known as stripe virus. Stripe virus is a disease we have to be very careful of. There is another disease called aflatoxin that comes in, when growing peanuts. In America, by electronic means, every peanut kernel is inspected. It goes through an electronic process to be sure that there is no aflatoxin contamination. Aflatoxin has been known to cause cancer, but that process does not exist in Argentina and does not exist in China. The food safety requirements in regard to peanuts in the United States is a very important issue and something that we ought to be very careful about. The issue of contamination was raised a while ago by one of the commissions on world trade matters in regard to peanuts that were stored in Amsterdam. When they were proposed to come into the United States, they were examined, and it was found that there was a substantial number of rat droppings in the peanuts. I yield to the Senator from Georgia for 5 minutes.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, mentioned the economic effect. There has been a recent study by Auburn University on the economic impact in the tri- State area of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, showing that the peanut industry there exceeds $1.3 billion and the employment associated with economic activity related to the peanut industry exceeds 16,000 jobs. This has been based on the way that the Base Closure Commission did their calculations, the effect not just on peanut farmers, but what effect it has on other dealers and communities--the COBRA effect that was set up under the base closures. Going with the Santorum type of amendment would really mean the end of the peanut program. You would eliminate 37,500 jobs, with $350 million in lost farm revenue, $50 million in lost exports, a $750 million drop in land values, and a $25 million loss in tax revenues. That is just in those three States referenced in the study. It does not take into account other peanut-producing regions. The conclusion is that changes made in the order proposed by Senator Santorum will have a tremendous negative economic effect. In order to accurately understand the situation faced by domestic producers relative to foreign growers of peanuts you have to examine the guidelines, restrictions, wage and labor laws, as well as environmental laws in order to put domestic producers on the same playing field. No. 1, as compared to American peanut producers, they are not subject to minimum wages. The farm labor in those countries--in China and in Argentina and even in Mexico or any of the rest of the peanut producing countries--is so drastically lower than the wages in the United States. There is no environmental protection, and, of course, there is no restricted chemical use, as we pointed out. There has to be rigorous post-harvest treatment and rigorous inspection here in the United States. None of that exists in the foreign countries. So you have a situation where, if you reduce the price support down to the Santorum level, what this is going to mean is you get it down below the cost of production. Then, what it is going to mean is you are going to drive those farmers out of business because they cannot afford to produce peanuts and make a profit and still comply with all the stricter wage, environmental, and pesticide regulations. Therefore, peanut production will be forced to go overseas. The peanut industry has already suffered from unfavorable trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT. You are going to have a situation in which you will see there will be no more peanuts grown in the United States. It is going to mean the end of peanut production. Then you are going to get peanuts coming in from Argentina, China, Mexico, and these other places. Another example? In the area which Senator Coverdell talked about, the poor areas of Georgia, there is a large minority participation in the peanut program. The ratio is more than 6 times greater than in the national average in those Southern States. It means those people are going to be losing jobs relative to the peanut industry. The reform package that is in the Lugar-Leahy-Craig bill, what we have today, already cuts the peanut program by 28 percent. It is a no- cost-to-the-Government program, and it has made substantial reforms-- too many, in my judgment. I hope I can do something about it in conference to improve it. But, nevertheless, that is the bill before us right now. Today, it is a matter of whether you are going to kill a reformed peanut program that has worked well or you will support peanut production in the United States. I understand the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, would like some time. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. HEFLIN. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, you have to have a piece of paper, a license, to sell liquor. This is different. The largest peanut farmer in the country does not have a quota. He is in California, and he has 5,000 acres of peanuts.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the agricultural community in Alabama and throughout the Southeast have not had a more forceful and competent representative than Richard G. ``Dick'' Fifield. For 20 years, this loyal friend to has done an outstanding job of directing the Washington legislative operations of the Alabama Farmers Federation--widely known as ALFA--as the organization's official liaison to Congress. Dick will be retiring from his position as ALFA's Director of National Affairs and Research on March 1, 1996, and will be sorely missed by all of us who have been fortunate enough to know him and work with him over the years. As a long-time member of the Senate's Agriculture Committee, I have had the pleasure of working with Dick Fifield on a great number of issues that are important to American farmers, especially those in the South. The major legislation on which we have worked includes the peanut program; the Food and Agriculture Act of 1981; the Food Security Act of 1985; and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. The peanut, cotton, soybean, dairy, cattle, hog, poultry, and catfish programs have his fingerprints all over them. In each case, Dick's counsel, insight, ingenuity, and strong leadership have contributed not only to their passage and enactment into law, but to their overall success during their implementation phase. He has indeed been my mentor and teacher. Practically all of my knowledge about American agriculture has come from him. There is no one more knowledgeable. Doctoral degrees are usually given to those in academic circles because of their knowledge about a particular subject. I gave Dick the name ``Dr. Fifield'' because I felt he was superior to most PhD's. Not only will I miss him as a mentor and teacher, but also as a dear friend. As ALFA's Washington director, he also works extensively with the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Trade Representative; the Department of the Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Army Corps of Engineers; the Statistical Reporting Service; the Farmers Home Administration; the Soil Conservation Service; as well as other agencies which handle agricultural programs and projects. It is no surprise that his friendly face is known far and wide within the various corners of the Federal Government. He has been an effective representative of farm interests due not only to his God-given talents, but also because of his extensive experience as a college professor, a geologist, a science editor, and a horticulturist. Examples of his influence on Alabama agriculture are numerous and varied. For instance, the State's modern farmers market, located in Montgomery, was made possible by his submission of the original design and his work on legislation and grants to raise the $5 million needed to built the facility. He started annual farmers market days in Montgomery, Huntsville, and Birmingham, establishing a producer-farmer market inside Birmingham's Eastwood Mall. Dick initiated the ALFA's monthly Food Price Survey and he remains the project's director. The food basket report is regarded by the business community and the media as one of the State's best economic indicators. He represented the peanut industry in efforts to protect Section 22 of the GATT negotiations. He is a member of the Technical Advisory Committee of the National Peanut Growers Group; Assistant Director of the Farm Crisis and Transition Committee for Alabama; and has served on the Governor's Agriculture Policy Advisory Committee and the Energy Advisory Committee. Along with the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Environmental Task Force, he helped form a State-wide endangered species task force for Alabama. Dick received his bachelor of science degree in biology and geology from Beloit College in 1951. He continued his education at the University of Hawaii, the Wisconsin Institute of Technology, and the University of Wisconsin, receiving his master's degree in 1972 from the University of Illinois. Over the course of his career, he served as an instructor of geology at the Wisconsin Institute of Technology; as an exploration geologist with the New Jersey Zinc Co.; and as a representative of the college textbook division in sales and as a field editor in science with the Houghton Mifflin Company. Also, he served in the U.S. Army in the counter-intelligence corps as an investigative special agent. Before accepting his position with ALFA, he was assistant horticulturist with the University of Illinois. Dick Fifield's retirement will leave a void for American agriculture. He is as knowledgeable as anyone I know of as to the complexity of the integral parts of food and fiber production in this country and their effects on every phase of the American economy. His goal has been to improve the quality of life for rural America while at the same time providing consumers with a stable, safe, and cost-effective farm programs. I hope he doesn't stray too far, for we will continue to rely on his counsel even after he retires. I commend Dick for all his outstanding and unwavering service to the agricultural community, and wish him and his wonderful wife, Shirley, all the best as they retire and enter a new phase of their lives. I know he will enjoy having more quality time with his family and many, many friends. Both ALFA and the Alabama Congressional delegation will sorely miss his strong and principled advocacy for agriculture in our State.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were ratified on December 15, 1791, forming what we refer to as the Bill of Rights. The first amendment covers what we have come to consider the most primary and essential element of our freedom as Americans: ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' Thomas Jefferson once wrote that if it were left up to him to decide between a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, he would not hesitate to choose the latter. This year, we celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Alabama Press Association [APA]. Founded in 1871, the APA is the oldest statewide trade association in Alabama and one of the oldest State newspaper associations in the Nation. According to APA information, William Wallace Screws, the editor of the Montgomery Advertiser in 1871, took the initiative and invited newspaper executives from around the State to help build new communication links among themselves. On March 17 of that year, eight editors and publishers met in Screws' office and made plans to organize the press of Alabama. Newspapers represented in that first meeting were the Montgomery Advertiser, the Montgomery Mail, the Evergreen Observer, the Troy Messenger, the Union Springs Times and Herald, the Montgomery State Journal, the Talladega Sun, and the Opelika Locomotive. In 1872, at the first convention, 30 editors and publishers from every corner of the State came together to form a new association of newspapermen called the Editors and Publishers Association of the State of Alabama. Since those early days, this association has played an important role in developing the daily and weekly newspapers of Alabama and in helping to lead the State's economic and cultural development. The APA has also worked on behalf of the citizenry of Alabama by advocating stronger citizen access to government records and meetings. On February 24 and 25 of this year, editors and publishers from Alabama's daily and weekly newspapers will gather for the 125th successive year. The site of this anniversary celebration is in Montgomery, the same city in which the organization was founded. During this convention, they will hear historians discuss the role of newspapers in Alabama's history while also considering the future role of newspapers in the Nation's rapidly changing communications industry. The 1996 APA is led by its president, R. Douglas Pearson, editor and publisher of the Daily Mountain Eagle in Jasper. The first vice president is Michael R. Kelley, editor and publisher of the Clanton Advertiser, and the second vice president is John W. Stevenson, editor and publisher of the Randolph Leader. APA's executive director is William B. Keller. For 125 years, the APA has thrived under its first amendment rights. Taken as a whole, freedom of the press in the United States rests upon relatively firm constitutional footing. The media's general right to publish material, regardless of potential impacts on government operations or other features of national life, has been accepted. Winston Churchill eloquently stated the importance of a free press in his own country during the midst of World War II when he said, ``A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny.'' I salute the APA on reaching this distinguished milestone.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Leahy substitute farm bill. The Leahy substitute farm bill, is at its core, essentially the freedom-to-farm bill. The provisions contained in the Leahy substitute were never debated in committee, were not passed as part of the Senate budget reconciliation bill, but were instead approved in conference. I have some strong reservations regarding the freedom-to-farm bill, although I too, share the concerns of each Member of this body that farmers need immediate certainty. The farmers in Alabama experienced a disastrous year in 1995 with a drought, insect infestations and even a hurricane or two. These farmers have suffered a great deal and the payments in freedom to farm appear very attractive. However, the guaranteed payments freedom to farm offers are made in exchange for a phaseout of farm programs. I disagree strongly with phasing out farm programs. The efforts undertaken by the Department of Agriculture to address the disastrous crop year and subsequent financial hardship provides another option for American agriculture. The USDA has announced its intention to allow for extended repayment of advance deficiency payments, with the interest waived in some cases. This effort should be applauded. I also think that the discussion regarding the forgiveness of 1995 advance deficiency payments warrant some merit. I believe that we can provide income stability for our farmers without demanding the phaseout of farm programs in return. The core component of sound farm policy should be an adequate and certain safety net, one that provides support when market prices are low, and one that does not need to make payments when the market is up. This is how current farm programs are structured, and they work. I have long stated that I believe that the current structure of farm programs have served rural America, and consumers everywhere, extremely well. Therefore, it is my belief that farm programs should only be fine tuned. I do recognize that some of my less fortunate regional colleagues feel that farm programs that affect their States need greater changes than those that affect the South. The ability to resolve these differences is the purpose of debate on farm programs. which to this point has been very little in committee, where farm programs are supposed to be written. Therefore, I recommend that we return to committee and discuss the farm bill as we always have in the past. We would then be able to bring a bill to the floor that addresses all of our needs and concerns, and pass a bill that serves our agricultural producers, rural America and consumers alike.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Floyd H. Mann, who served in the cabinets of three Alabama Governors and is credited with saving the life of a civil rights activist in Montgomery, died on January 12, 1996 at the age of 76. A native of Daviston, AL, located in Tallapoosa County, he served in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. As a tail gunner on a B-17 aircraft, he flew on 27 combat missions, including the first daylight raid on Berlin. He received numerous awards for his brave service, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. Floyd Mann was a rather remarkable person and leader. He served as chief of police in Opelika, AL, from 1950 to 1958. He earned praise for his rapid clean-up of the town, which had suffered from corruption that had spread from nearby Phenix City. The Governor at the time, John Patterson, appointed Floyd director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety in 1959. During his tenure, he made national headlines for his one-man charge into a rioting mob that was beating a bus full of civil rights freedom riders at a Montgomery bus station in 1961. He was credited as having helped save the life of a black Tennessee student and a Birmingham newsman during that painful incident. His heroic actions earned him the United Press International's Man of the Year in Alabama Award for 1961. Later, Floyd served as director of public safety under Gov. Albert Brewer and was administrator of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board during Gov. Fob James' first term in 1982-83. He also worked as an assistant to University of Alabama President David Matthews, whom he followed to Washington, DC, to work with at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. While at the University of Alabama, he was very active as the head of security and was a great public relations person for the school. He knew almost all of the alumni personally, and always greeted them with a bright smile, firm handshake, and warm conversation. I remember being in Tuscaloosa, where the university is located, many times and going by the old Stafford Hotel early in the morning where a group of local citizens would be gathered for coffee. Floyd would always be right at the center of the group. Different people would come in and he would stay and meet with the groups. He was well liked and deeply respected. Floyd Mann was one of those people who never failed to do what was right, even if it meant risking his personal safety. He knew the meaning of being neighborly, of treating others the way he wanted to be treated. He took a considerable degree of pride in his work, and seemed genuinely excited about the things he did and about the people around him. I extend my sincerest condolences to Floyd's wife of 51 years, Grace, and their entire family in the wake of this tremendous loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, thousands of people in Alabama and all over the country were deeply saddened by the death of Dr. Arthur George Gaston on January 19, 1996. He was one of the most successful businessmen of our time, as well as a generous philanthropist and civic leader who never forgot his humble beginnings. When I think of A.G. Gaston, many different facets of his life come to mind. Of course, his longevity, his business success, his compassion for the less fortunate, his lifelong battle for civil rights, and his many tangible contributions to his community, State, and Nation are things that stand out. But I am also reminded that Dr. Gaston was born on the Fourth of July in 1892. He shared his birthday with our Republic, and in many significant and profound ways, he and the Nation grew up and matured together during those more than 100 years of his lifetime. It was so fitting that he was born on the Fourth of July, the founding of our country, for he was truly the American dream personified. During his long and unusually productive life, Dr. Gaston helped countless young people obtain an education, supported numerous causes, including the civil rights movement, and inspired several generations to achieve great things through hard work, perseverance, and a commitment to lifelong learning. He served his church and his people with passionate dedication, energy, and wisdom. Just a few short years ago, as he celebrated the anniversary of his 100th birthday, Dr. Gaston remarked, ``The Lord has seen fit to let me live to this age for a purpose and it is my hope that I have served him and my people as he wanted me to. I have lived a long life. I have received many blessings.'' A.G. Gaston's life did indeed have purpose and meaning, so much so that it is difficult to capture them in words. Those who knew him, either directly or indirectly, knew what that purpose and meaning were by the example he set and by the tremendous contributions he made to those around him. He was a remarkable role model--a quintessential American success story. There is no doubt that he used his many gifts and blessings and served his fellow man in the way the Lord intended. In so doing, he became one of God's most generous gifts to us. Dr. Gaston will be greatly missed, but his legacy is one that will never fade. I ask unanimous consent that a Birmingham News editorial on his life and work be printed in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, Judge James H. Tompkins, who passed away on January 9, 1996 at the age of 84. He had an abiding love for politics, public policy, and the law, and was known in Democratic circles all over the country since he attended so many Democratic national conventions over the years. Jimmy Tompkins was a life-long resident of my home county, Colbert County, AL. He was a graduate of the University of Alabama and was a probate judge, district attorney, and practicing attorney in the county. He was a veteran of World War II, having served as lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate General's Office in Europe, Africa, India, China, and Burma. The family of Judge Tompkins is truly one of judges. He served as probate judge of Colbert County. His father, Nathaniel Pride Tompkins, also was a Colbert County probate judge, as was his wife, Maybeth Robbins Tompkins, who succeeded Jimmy as the judge of probate. Their son, Pride Tompkins, is currently a circuit judge in Colbert County. Jimmy's brother-in-law, David ``Pal'' Cochrane, served as judge of probate of Tuscaloosa County. Jimmy was an outstanding trial lawyer long before he became a probate judge. He practiced with the firm of Smith, Tompkins & Hughston, one of the leading firms in the State. Partner James E. Smith was a State senator at one time and was also the Democratic national committeeman from Alabama. Partner Harold V. Hughston served as a circuit judge of Colbert County. He had a wonderful, pleasing personality. The smile he always had on his face was hard to forget. Jimmy Tompkins had many friends and he was a great friend to many, including me, over the years, and will be sorely missed. I extend my sincerest condolences to Maybeth Tompkins and her entire family in the wake of their tremendous loss.