Howell Heflin

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his kind words that he said about me earlier. Unfortunately, I was not on the floor. I had an appointment on a vital matter. I had to leave, so I did not hear him. But I thank him very much. I want to make some distinctions. One is the difference between constitutional language and implementing legislation. In the Biden amendment, there is a limitation on what can be done by the Congress if that constitutional amendment is adopted. It says the Congress has the power to enact the following law, and then sets out that law in some specificity. The Hatch amendment basically allows Congress to be able to enact legislation dealing with the physical desecration of the flag, and all of these matters pertaining to rugs, Boy Scouts and all of that as mentioned by my friend and colleague Senator Chafee, can be taken care of in implementing legislation. There is a distinction between constitutional language and implementing legislation. So, by adopting very brief language which gives authority to Congress to adopt implementing legislation, it does not mean that you are going to have a situation where it would be unlawful to walk on a hooked rug or where it would be unlawful for a Boy Scout to burn a flag in a situation where it has been torn or soiled or something of that nature. That is for implementing legislation to be able to address in order to take care of that situation. The next matter I want to address is the issue pertaining to triviality. I think we have entered a stage in our society where we look at things that are extremely important sometimes as being trivial. We look to some things and we say that they are trivial, but I think we have trivialized so many values and symbols that, basically, we no longer have anything that is sacred. I think it is time that we have some matters, including symbols, that are sacred in this United States. We have seen the deterioration of morals, we have seen the deterioration of respect for institutions and for traditions, and I think it is time we look at some of these concerns that are very important to this country. I think the flag is, and I think the flag ought to be sacred. I have spoken previously and recited statements of the feelings of certain great protectors of the first amendment, such as Justice Hugo Black, Justice John Paul Stevens, and Chief Justice Earl Warren, and their feelings toward the Constitution and the right to protect the flag. I think, when you look at their writings and see how they express themselves on this, that is an answer to those who feel that this is something that will take away from the freedoms or that Congress is invading an area that it should not invade. I think that we also have a right to likewise prohibit desecration of the American flag without impinging on Americans' right to freedom of speech. I strongly support a constitutional amendment to prevent the desecration of the American flag. As an original co-sponsor, along with Senator Hatch, I urge our colleagues to join in protecting the sanctity of this symbol of our great Nation. As I have said before on the Senate floor, I feel that the Supreme Court's decision in Texas versus Johnson, incorrectly places flag burning under the protection of the first amendment. In my judgement, it is our responsibility to change that decision and return the flag to the position of respect it deserves. Few people would disagree with the argument that the American flag stands as one of the most powerful and meaningful symbols of freedom ever created. Justice Stevens calls the flag a national asset much like the Lincoln Memorial. He states that: Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag. I must agree with Justice Stevens in his belief that the flag should be protected from such desecration. However, I believe that the flag also has a tangible value. I feel that the Court could have expressed an opinion that would have allowed protection to both values. The flag holds a mighty grip over many people in this country. Its patriotic appeal is as unique to every person as a fingerprint. Thousands of Americans have followed the flag into battle and many, to our sorrow, have left these battles in coffins draped proudly by the American flag. Nothing quite approaches the power of the flag as it drapes those who died for it--or the power of the flag as it is handed to the widow of that fallen soldier. The meaning behind these flags goes far beyond the cloth used to make the flag or the dyes used to color Old Glory--red, white, and blue. The flag reaches to the very heart of what it means to be an American. It would be a tragedy for us to allow the power of the flag to be undermined through desecration. Allowing the burning of that flag creates a mockery of the great respect so many patriotic Americans have for the flag. As I have stated before, I feel on many different levels that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong. I feel it was wrong for me personally, it was wrong for patriotism, it was wrong for this country, but perhaps most importantly, this decision was judicially wrong. I want to emphasize that although I am a strong believer in first amendment rights, I recognize that first amendment rights are not absolute and unlimited. There have been numerous decisions of the Supreme Court that limit freedom of expression. Some of history's great protectors of the freedom of speech have agreed that the first amendment is not absolute. Many of these protectors have agreed that the flag is a symbol of such profound importance that protecting it is permissible. I will be quoting from some of the protectors of the flag and the freedom of speech such as Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Hugo Black, Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In a landmark case reflecting the Supreme Court's long-held belief that the freedom of expression is not absolute, the Court in Shenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), stated that: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that: The question in every case is whether the words [actions] used are used in such clear circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the Congress has a right to prevent. Clearly the indignation caused by the Johnson decision and the fisticuffs which have broken out in flag burning attempts show that flag burning should not be protected by the first amendment. What if the flag burning had occurred in wartime? Certainly, a clear and present danger would be present. Justice Stevens wrote in Los Angeles City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984), that: The first amendment does not guarantee the right to imply every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places. Arguments have been made that limitations on the freedom of expression refer only to bodily harm, however, the Supreme Court has recognized the need for individuals to protect their honor, integrity, and reputation when injured by libel or slander. This is seen in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which provides standards regarding the libel of public figures and Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), which provides standards regarding libel of private individuals. These holdings protect an individual's honor from defamation. I see no reason why the honor of our flag should not be protected. Arguments have also been made that limitations on free speech involve only civil suits. However, the Court has continually upheld criminal statutes involving obscene language and pornography. This is seen in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), which upholds a New York statute regarding child pornography and Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), which provides much of the current legal framework for the regulation of obscenity. The U.S. Supreme Court has even upheld criminal statutes involving draft card burning. In United States v. O'Brian, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), the Court upheld the Federal statute which prohibited the destruction or mutilation of a draft card. In reaching this decision the Court expressly stated: [w]e cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ``speech'' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. Certainly the people of America have a right to expect that the honor, integrity, and reputation of this Nation's flag should be protected. If draft card burning can be prohibited, surely burning the American flag can also be prohibited. Does a draft card have more honor than the American flag? Certainly not. In his dissent in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 577 (1969), Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: I believe that the states and the federal government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace . . . However, it is difficult for me to imagine that, had the court faced this issue, it would have concluded otherwise. In this same case, Justice Hugo Black dissented stating: It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a state from making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense. I do not think that anyone can question that Hugo Black and Earl Warren were champions of the first amendment, but they recognized that the flag was something different, something special. The Supreme Court substantiated this view in Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974), when the majority of the court noted that: [c]ertainly nothing prevents a legislature from defining with substantial specificity what constitutes forbidden treatment of the United States flag. Finally I would like to quote from Justice Stevens in Texas v. Johnson, when he says about the flag: It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other people who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity and survival. I am a strong believer that the rights under the first amendment should be fully protected and do not feel that an amendment changing these rights should be adopted except in very rare instances. The Founding Fathers, in drafting article V of the Constitution, intended that if it would be extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and a difficult ratification process requiring the vote of three-fourths of the States. The history of this country shows that only 27 amendments to the Constitution have been adopted and only 17 after the Bill of Rights was ratified. Some may ask Why have a constitutional amendment; Why not try legislation? To those I would say the Senate has passed statutes concerning flag desecration. As a body we have tried to oppose the protection of flag desecration, but statutory law has not worked. We have a number of groups that have joined together to form the Citizen's Flag Alliance. There are about 90 organizations in this wide ranging coalition. In addition, 46 States' legislatures have passed memorializing resolutions calling for the flag to be protected by the Congress. In my judgement, we should heed this call and act decisively to ensure that the American flag remains protected and continues to hold the high place we have afforded it in both our hearts and history. The flag is indeed an important national asset which we must always support as we would support the country herself. In closing, I want to share with you the eloquent words of Henry Ward Beecher's work, ``The American Flag,'' which expresses this sentiment: A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself. He reads in the flag the government, the principles, the truths, the history which belong to the nation that sets it forth. I hope that my colleagues will consider all that the flag means to them, and in so doing support this amendment, which protects those ideals. I would like to also make a statement concerning the issue pertaining to Judiciary Committee hearings on the amendment. I believe Senator Chafee asked if any hearings were held? There was an extensive hearing held on the proposed constitutional amendment. During that hearing, as is the purpose of congressional hearings, you have criticisms that are made, and you have alternatives that are offered. So, therefore, the committee had alternatives that were presented. The results of the hearing raised some legitimate issues pertaining to the question of having the States have their right to pass statutes banning flag desecration. The committee did not necessarily hear comments on the exact language of every possible constitutional word that might be considered. But in the end, you have a record which shows that the hearing generally covered those questions which would apply to the particular issue of whether or not the States ought to have the right to ban flag desecration. So this issue was considered and members of the committee were informed as to the merits of allowing States to adopt implementing legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Olin Brooks, who is retiring this month from the Bankruptcy Administrator's Office. He is the estate analyst in the Anniston Bankruptcy Administrator's Office for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. Born in 1933, Olin attended Woodlawn High School in Birmingham. After high school, he served in the U.S. Air Force for 2 years. He later attended Auburn University, receiving his bachelor of science degree in 1959 and his law degree from the Birmingham School of Law in 1970. From 1959 until 1962, he worked for the State of Alabama Department of Revenue as a revenue representative. He worked for the Internal Revenue Service from 1962 through 1987, eventually moving into a management and advisory position in the Bankruptcy Division of the IRS Special Procedures Office. I am pleased to commend and congratulate Olin Brooks for his many years of service to his State and Nation. I wish him all the best for a long and happy retirement.

Mr. HEFLIN

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

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, today I rise to show my support for this resolution that is designed to prohibit the desecration of the American flag. It is clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure the validity of any statute banning flag desecration. Forty-nine States have passed memorializing resolutions calling on Congress to take this action and forward this issue for consideration to the States. Earlier this session, this resolution was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote. I expect the same bipartisan support when the whole Senate votes on this resolution. The movement for this bill has been unfairly attributed to political parties using it for political gain. This is untrue. The impetus for this amendment comes from over 85 grassroots organizations, such as the Citizens Flag Alliance and the American Legion. These groups have worked unceasingly to return to the protection of the flag by means of a constitutional amendment. Their work has resulted in 49 State legislatures passing resolutions petitioning Congress to act and decide this issue through the ratification process. There are those who feel that the first amendment rights ought to prevail, and they consider that this is a form of protest expression. If you look at the Constitution, the first amendment talks about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Both are forms of expression, and they make a distinction between speech and press. However, regardless of whether there is some distinction in regard to various forms of expression, I think we have to look to the history of staunch defenders of civil liberties and of the first amendment rights. The two names that come to mind the most are Hugo Black and Earl Warren. These Supreme Court justices were very clear in their writings that the first amendment did not apply to flag desecration. In fact, at a Judiciary Committee hearing on this issue, we had the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel, the Honorable Walter Dellinger, who served as a professor of law at Duke University, testify against the amendment. He recited, when I raised the issue about Justice Black and Chief Justice Warren, how fervently they felt that prohibiting did not violate the first amendment. Mr. Dellinger said at the time that he was the law clerk for Justice Hugo Black, ``you know, law clerks always want to know what goes on in conference.'' So they, therefore, will get their ears close to a keyhole and listen in to hear sounds of voices from within that sometimes quietly but effectively creep out. He said he would put his ear to the keyhole and listen to what was going on in conference to try and hear what the Justices were saying in their arguments. He recited that there was no question that Hugo Black and Earl Warren were fervent in their position, very strong in their position that first amendment rights were not being violated by the fact that you had statutes which protected the flag. They wrote in Street versus New York, a case that was not directly in point, and expressed themselves very clearly in regard to this particular issue. Mr. Dellinger informed us at the hearing that flag desecration brought these two eminent jurists together with the opinion that ``the States and the Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace.'' The American flag is the symbol that unites us and symbolizes everything that we have fought for and died for over the years. Honoring the flag is an integral part of American life. The Pledge of Allegiance that is given is a pledge of allegiance to the flag. I think this is very important to realize, because the flag is the unifier that brings together our diverse, pluralistic views. We sing the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' and the ``Star Spangled Banner'' speaks of the fact that it flies over [[Page S 18049]] ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' So I think our flag is a great unifier. Respect for the flag begins at an early age, and is constantly reinforced throughout our life. We sing the national anthem at special events, begin school days with the Pledge of Allegiance, and stand at attention at Veterans Day parades when our soldiers proudly march through the streets holding high the flag that they protect. Few things stir more emotion and patriotism for us as the Iwo Jima Memorial which depicts the marines risking their lives to raise our flag. I served in the Pacific in World War II, so it is hard for me to conceive that we have reached a point in our history where there is such casual disregard for the flag that some citizens would desecrate it. Opponents have raised several legitimate concerns over the amendment. One of these is whether the amendment would carve out an exception to the first amendment. This amendment would simply overturn two erroneous decisions of the Supreme Court which misconstrued the first amendment. In one of those cases, Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent summed up the symbol of the flag best in the case of Texas versus Johnson decision, which was handed down in l989 and unfortunately, allowed flag desecration. Justice Stevens said: It is a symbol of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, of good will for other people who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival. By protecting this one unique national symbol, we have not reduced our freedom of speech. The first amendment has been interpreted broadly by the courts over the years, but it has never been deemed absolute. It does not protect ``fighting words'' or yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Prior to 1989, Americans' right to express their views was not curtailed by the laws of 48 States, which prohibited flag desecration. Other matters, such as obscenity, defamation, or other restrictions on freedom of speech, such as the destruction of a draft card, have been held by courts not to come within the purview of the first amendment. Another concern which has been raised is that there is no need for an amendment. The number of times the desecration of the flag is documented is not the point. The law should not turn simply on the number of cases; it should turn on what effect there is on the flag as a symbol of the unity and freedom of our country each time it is desecrated. This flag is devalued when there exists no legal means to protect the flag from those who would desecrate it in order to express their views. I believe this amendment will not deter flag desecration in all cases. In some cases, it may even spur a handful of people to burn flags in order to test its purpose. But by allowing the flag the protection of a constitutional amendment, we reiterate our belief that we ourselves value the flag as a symbol of what America stands for. Our society is increasingly pluralistic, and being an American means many different things. As we highlight our differences in this changing world, we must remember what unites us. Without unity, there would be no America. The flag is a great unifier that brings together Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and people from all walks of life and different persuasions. The flag crosses religious belief, race, cultural heritage, geography, and age. To disregard the power and the importance of our flag is to take us down a path that we would be wise not to follow. I think we should support this constitutional amendment, and I feel that it is important that we do so. I believe that the vast majority of the American people support the amendment. In fact, a 1995 Gallup Poll was taken, which asked whether the American people thought that we should have the right to determine by vote whether or not the flag should be protected from desecration. Eighty-one percent of the people said ``yes.'' Asked whether they thought such an amendment would jeopardize their right to freedom of speech, 76 percent answered that it would not jeopardize their freedom of speech. So I feel that there is great support for this effort across the land, and I hope my colleagues will join us in adopting this constitutional amendment, which will give great importance to America and to the flag that unites us, because the flag that we pledge allegiance to is a pledge also to our Republic and to our belief in this great country of ours. I yield the floor. Mr. Gramm addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference report on H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act. After months of secret negotiations from which supporters of small investors, consumers, senior citizens, and public officials who invest taxpayer money were excluded, the proponents of the bill have agreed upon the conference report. Now that the light of day has been shed on the results of the negotiations it is clear that the conference report is far more devastating for investors than the bill which the Senate passed earlier this year. The conference report fails to fix the glaring inequities between investors and unscrupulous corporate insiders. It has taken some of the worst provisions from both the House and the Senate bill and combined them to form this unacceptable report. Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report now broadly immunizes oral or written forward-looking statements by corporate insiders with only a requirement that there be ``cautionary'' language to accompany the statement. The determination of what is ``cautionary'' invites litigation, but for [[Page S 17980]] those who have already lost their life savings based on this safe harbor this litigation is too late. Pursuant to the conference report the individual investors who have been victimized by an unscrupulous broker, or fraudulent statement will probably never have their day in court. This is due to the inclusion of a House provision which allows the court to impose a bond requirement to cover the payment of fees and expenses, with no limitation on the amount of the bond. If an individual investor attempts to seek justice from a large corporate defendant, such a bond would probably be unattainable. Another change from the bill passed by the Senate is the financial risk imposed on investors of having to pay the full legal fees of big corporate defendants if they lose. The new penalty for a plaintiff for a violation of the Federal rules requires that he or she pay all of the corporate defendant's legal fees and expenses for the entire case. This full fee-shifting sanction would be calculated after the case has been completed, when the court must make findings. By the way, if the defendant is found at fault, he is fined only the fees and expenses that are a direct result of a frivolous filing. This English rule, fee shifting, could virtually eliminate all securities claims, the meritless along with the meritorious. In another move away from the Senate bill the conferees dropped proinvestor language which clarified the burdensome pleading requirements of the bill. In a blow to investors, the proponents have retained an extremely difficult pleading requirement. The report will require plaintiffs to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. This state of mind or intent requirement must be obtained before any discovery or testimony has even taken place. Most courts have rejected this high standard as being in conflict with the purposes and express language of the Federal rules. The report not only adopts this language but raises the requirement even more. Furthermore, the conference report fails to correct some of the major problems in the Senate bill. These problems include the extremely short statute of limitations and the abrogation of joint and several liability in all but a very limited number of circumstances. The report retains the immunity for aiders and abettors which would have been a boon to the defendants in the Lincoln Savings failure case. The report also retains the requirement that the court appoint a most adequate plaintiff, thus eliminating the issues of concern to smaller investors and inserting the concerns of the wealthiest investor. I have recently received letters from organizations expressing their concern with this report and legislation. The Fraternal Order of Police state that this legislation would create a privileged class of criminals, by immunizing many of those involved with the markets from civil liability in cases of securities fraud. The UAW describes the legislation as one-sided and contends that it will allow for limited remedies to be available for the investor and pension funds which lose money due to fraudulent investment schemes. I believe that if a more balanced approach to securities law reform could be reached, the proponents could gain the support of these groups and hundreds of others. The stock market recently broke 5000 and is as robust and active as at any time in our Nation's history. Small investors driven away from the markets due to the crash in the early eighties are starting to return to the markets. This is not the time to pass legislation which will erode public confidence in the integrity of the markets. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this report and send it back to the conferees, demanding a more balanced approach to securities law reform.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I was very saddened to learn of the retirement of Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. He and I came here together in the class of 1978 and have served with each other on the Judiciary Committee, tackling some contentious nominations and other high-profile issues. He has emerged as a true leader on many issues including immigration and population issues. He is someone I would term a ``character,'' for he is certainly one of the more colorful and humorous individuals to have ever served in the Senate. His quick wit is legend, and many of us--Democrat and Republican alike--have been victims of it at one time or another over the years, but, much more often the beneficiaries of it. He uses it both ways--to score a point but more often to break an unresolved impasse. Senator Simpson is the son of former Wyoming Governor and Senator Milward Simpson and has been in and around politics all his life. Born in Denver, CO, in 1931, he earned both his bachelor of science and law degrees at the University of Wyoming in Laramie. He served in the U.S. Army from 1954 to 1956 and began his career as a litigator, raising his family in Cody, WY, [[Page S 17877]] and serving as assistant attorney general of Wyoming and in the State legislature. He was elected to the Senate in 1978 and quickly became a rising star in his party. He was seriously considered for the Vice Presidential nomination in 1988 and has led the fight for passage of many major legislative efforts. His service as his party's whip was outstanding, but in matters of conscience, he never lost his independence. Of course, our friend from Wyoming is best known here and throughout the country for his colorful personality. He is widely known for having one of the best senses of humor in Washington and one of its most acerbic tongues on occasion. He has entertained friends with his keen sense of comic timing, his witty delivery, and a standard portfolio of jokes and anecdotes, many of which could not be printed in the Congressional Record or other reputable publications. When he leaves the Senate, he could pursue a number of different careers. He has the talent to be another Johnny Carson. He could successfully pursue many other fields, for he has a brilliant legal mind and has the ability to get to the core of an issue rapidly. I count him as one of my closest friends. His beautiful, thoughtful, and gracious wife, Ann, is likewise a superb individual and my wife and I will never forget their genuine kindness and concern when Elizabeth Ann suddenly became ill on an overseas trip earlier this year. It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve with Senator Alan Simpson over the last 17 years, and I look forward to our last year here together. I congratulate him on an outstanding career, and hope that we have not seen the last of him in the public arena. We need his leadership, his passion for the issues, and his humor to help lighten our load.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, while Mark Hatfield's retirement announcement did not take me by complete surprise--for such decisions have become virtually a weekly event here in the Congress--I was nonetheless disappointed and saddened to learn that he would not be seeking reelection to the Senate next year. He is one of the senior Members of this body, and has been a national leader of uncommon earnestness, moderation, honesty, and principle. He is known for his lack of excessive partisanship and for always yielding to his conscience on the many difficult matters that come before us. He is thoughtful, deliberative, intellectual, and never fails to do what he believes to be right and in the best interest of his State and country. The people of Oregon have entrusted Senator Hatfield with its reins of leadership through State or national office since 1956, when he was elected secretary of state at the age of 34. In 1958, he was elected Governor, serving for 8 years. In 1966, he was elected to the Senate and has been here ever since. He is a deeply religious man who has been a spiritual leader as well as a public one. His leadership of our Senate Prayer Breakfast group over the years has been nothing short of inspirational. I have also enjoyed working with him on the National Prayer Breakfasts each year, something he had been involved with even at the State level when he was Governor back in Oregon. Our friend from Oregon has led by example; his religious convictions and quiet, friendly manner have been a powerful demonstration of how an ideal public official should conduct himself. He has been one for us to look at and emulate, regardless of our own political views. As a young serviceman, he was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after it was bombed. This experience left its mark, and Senator Hatfield has been an unfailing leader on issues relating to nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation. Mark Hatfield was born in Dallas, OR in 1922, and graduated from Willamette and Stanford Universities. He served in the Navy during World War II, commanding landing craft at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Early in his career, he was a teacher of political science and has written extensively on public policy issues. Since January, he has chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, a daunting task in its own right, but particularly challenging this year. He had previously served in that capacity. His graciousness and earnestness have not been diminished by the fierce budget wrangling this year. Senator Hatfield and I will be leaving the Senate at the same time, so I will not be serving here once he is gone. But I do know that those Members who do remain after him will find it a much lesser place in his absence. I am proud to call him a friend, I congratulate him on his outstanding career and for the way he has always conducted himself, and wish him and Antoinette all the best for a happy, healthy, and lengthy retirement. I also look forward to serving with him over the next year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Maurice Rosenberg, who passed away late last summer, was a well-known advocate for judicial reform on the State and Federal levels of government. He was a professor at Columbia University's School of Law. I had the great pleasure of working with him extensively over the years on the issues of court reform and judicial administration. He had a keen legal mind that led him to contribute enormously to our system of jurisprudence. During his 39-year tenure as a professor at Columbia, Dr. Rosenberg wrote and lectured extensively on the legal system, particularly on issues of procedure and access to the courts. He had an intense dislike for the staggering increase in cases which clog the courts and proposed measures to help ease the burden. One of his recommendations was to replace juries in small-claims cases with arbitrators. During a 1977 interview, he questioned the effect on society as a whole of people being so quick to sue each other in court. Between 1971 and 1975, Dr. Rosenberg headed the Advisory Council on Appellate Justice and was later on the Council on the Role of the Courts. In 1979, President Carter appointed him Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office for Improvements in the Administration of Justice. Previously, he had served on the mayor's committee on the judiciary in New York City. In 1980, he was appointed by Chief Justice Warren Burger to the Federal Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, on which he served until 1987. A graduate of Syracuse University, he received his law degree from Columbia. Dr. Rosenberg was an outstanding court scholar, professor, and lawyer who early on foresaw what is now called the litigation explosion. He acknowledged that part of the increase in litigation and in the law's complexity was due to greater public awareness of rights and a willingness to try them out in court. He once said, ``That is certainly preferable to having them tested in the streets.'' But he also felt that law schools should do more to sensitize students to possibilities other [[Page S 17927]] than simply adopting an adversarial frame of mind. Maurice Rosenberg will long be remembered as one of this century's legal giants. His contributions to the field of jurisprudence will be lasting and will guide scholarly thought for decades to come. I extend my sincerest condolences to his family in the wake of their tremendous loss. (At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Birmingham, AL has always conducted outstanding Veterans Day events. Each year, the ceremonies commence on the night of November 10, the day before Veterans Day, when a banquet is held to remember our veterans and to formally honor the National Veterans Award recipients. This year, National Veterans Day in Birmingham sponsors, which include 16 of the national veterans organizations, decided to present the award to 5 World War II Congressional Medal of Honor winners. They were Adm. Eugene Fluckey of the U.S. Navy; Capt. Maurice Britt, U.S. Army; and PFC Jack Lucas, U.S. Marine Corps. There were two members honored from the Air Force, which during World War II was still the old Army Air Corps. They were Col. William T. Lawley and M.Sgt. Henry Eugene Erwin, both Alabama natives. There are a total of five surviving World War II veterans who served in the Army Air Corps and who are Congressional Medal of Honor winners, and we are proud that two of them hail from Alabama. Douglas Albert Monroe, signalman first class in the U.S. Coast Guard was honored posthumously. On Veterans Day itself, Birmingham hosts the World Peace Luncheon, which this year featured Adm. Leighton W. Smith, Jr., of the U.S. Navy as its distinguished guest speaker. Born in Mobile, Admiral Smith is the commander, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe and commander in chief, Allied Forces in Southern Europe. He was appointed to these posts in April 1994. He was promoted to vice admiral in June 1991, and served for 2\1/2\ years as deputy chief of naval operations for plans, policy, and operations. He was a major contributor to Navy staff reorganization and the development of From the Sea, the Navy's strategy for the 21st century. I ask that a copy of Admiral Leighton's outstanding address delivered at the World Peace Luncheon be printed in the Record. The material follows: Address by Adm. Leighton W. Smith, USN, Commander in Chief Allied Forces Southern Europe, Commander in Chief U.S. Naval Forces Europe Senator, Congressman, distinguished veterans, those of you who have worked so hard to put on this celebration, good morning. No one knows better than I the value of and the sacrifices made by those we left behind. I am distinctly honored to add my thoughts to those of the many distinguished speakers who have appeared here in previous years. I doubt I can adequately express my gratitude for having been invited to join fellow Alabamians to pay tribute to our veterans--both those that have joined us here today and those who have gone before us. It is absolutely right that we pause to reflect on what this day means--what it signifies--what it cost--and why, as Senator Heflin said last night, ``The Strength of our Nation Must Never Be Allowed to Atrophy''. Few gathered here today can recall the first Armistice Day or the terribleness of the war it commemorated. Time has distanced us from the horror of that conflict. It was the war to end all wars--but history reminds us that it really wasn't. Other wars, conflicts and crises have followed, all evidencing the common denominators of destruction and death, but also individuals whose commitment, courage and personal sacrifices have continued to inspire us all. Senator John Kerry, in speaking at the retirement of our Navy's Vietnam era swift boats, said: ``We were all bound together in the great and noble effort of giving ourselves to something bigger than each and every one of us individually, and doing so at risk of life and limb. Let no one ever doubt the quality and nobility of that commitment.'' Those words could have been spoken about our veterans who served in the trenches of France, at Pearl Harbor and Bataan, at Midway, Normandy and Iwo Jima. They would have been true at Inchon and the Frozen Chosin, in the jungles and skies of Vietnam, the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq and in other unnamed places where ordinary people do extraordinary things and in so doing, honor their country while preserving the ideals and values for which it stands. Last year I attended commemorative ceremonies at Normandy. As I sat waiting for the program to begin, I spotted an usher, a young soldier no more than 18 years old, my he looked so young. [[Page S 17931]] It suddenly dawned on me that this boy was the very same age as many of the men who, 50 years ago, had crawled across those bloody beaches and clawed their way up those terrible cliffs, each staring death square in the face. Some survived, all were heros, but tragically so many were mown down in the springtime of their youth, their lives ended before they had really begun. I was awed. What tragedy; what tragedy to rob a nation of its youth, to take a son or daughter from a father, mother, a sister or brother, a husband or wife. What tragedy to deny one so young the joys and excitement of life; the warmth of love, the thrill of watching one's children grow. But then I thought, what if they had not? Somehow seeing that young soldier made all those grave markers in that cemetery even more real, more alive. It literally slammed home in me the utter cruelty of war, the awfulness of what man can do to man, and equally as important, the enormous gift that all of those who experienced the terribleness of that war gave to us. I am told that somewhere in Burma there is a marker inscribed with the message: ``We gave our todays so you could enjoy your tomorrows.'' Those of us gathered here today, and in other places around our country, honor the veterans whose legacy of honor, courage and commitment should not, and shall not, ever be forgotten. Let me tell you that the actions of the young men and women of your Armed Forces tell me that they are, as Colin Powell said in an address here a few years back: ``worthy successors to what you their predecessors have passed on to them.'' You may all have heard of Capt. Scott O'Grady. He was shot down over Bosnia on 2 June. On the night of 7 June his squadron mate went on a ``fishing expedition'' to try to contact Scott. At 0200 he got contact with Scott O'Grady. I immediately called the amphibious commander, Jerry Schill and the Marine commander Marty Berndt. Both were on the U.S.S. Kearsarge in the Adriatic. I told them to close the coast/call away your tactical recovery of aircrew and personnel team. Didn't ask if--just when. We discussed risks and the possibility of a trap being set. I told Colonel Berndt you're in charge, look around, if you don't like what you see, come out. These were educated risks, and we were operating on the edge of the envelope. Four hours and thirty seven minutes--I got a call, one word--``pickup''. Not many understand all that occurred. We had 60 fixed wing aircraft, special operations backup rescue, Marines backup to that. Went next day to visit, Aviano, Vicenza, U.S.S. Kearsarge: There were no complaints, in spite of the mission being early morning, complex, risky. They thanked me for letting them go. Says a lot about courage, honor, commitment. The same characteristics were demonstrated in attempts to locate and rescue the French pilots shot down 30 August. Plan was developed to recce area of shootdown. At 0130 I got a call from Mike Ryan. Same coordination and complexity as the O'Grady rescue. We tried three successive nights. All three attempts experienced bad weather, all were shot at. That this rescue was not consummated in no way detracts from the courage and commitment of those who tried. These are wonderful stories, and I relive the excitement of those moments each time I tell them. But the important thing here is that these are real stories about real people who demonstrate, every single time they are asked, the legacy of their predecessors and the strength of our great nation. There are, in fact, two kinds of strengths. One is capability, and one is character. Capability is the mechanics, it is the equipment. The machines, the steel, the weapons, the computers, the number of battalions that can be fielded, capability is what we think of when we think of the force. Character, on the other hand, comes from the commitment of the people. It is the moral fabric that binds a nation together, that gives it purpose and defines its identity. Yet as different as capability and character seem, it is their combination that makes a nation strong, that empowers it to greatness, that enables it to lead. I would argue that a nation's strength and greatness is not fully tested until severely stressed, ours has, and we have never been found wanting. Our veterans defined our strength for us and the memory of what they did gives us strength today. Joseph Conrad said: ``And now the old ships and their men are gone; the new ships and men have taken their watch on the stern and impatient sea which offers no opportunities but to those who know how to grasp them with a ready hand and an undaunted heart.'' While we thank God for what the old ships and men gave us. I offer to you, our honored veterans that your worthy successors, the veterans of tomorrow, possess ready hands and undaunted hearts. They have learned well from your deeds. We owe you, we owe you a lot. We owe you our thanks, our admiration, and our respect, and we owe you the promise that we shall never allow to be forgotten the deeds performed, nor what you preserved for us. Your legacy of courage, honor and commitment has been received and will be passed on to future generations. This has been a singular honor for me and I am grateful to you all for allowing me to join you on this very special occasion.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Charles Goode Gomillion, who passed away on October 4 at the age of 95, will go down in history as the leader of the struggle to bring political power to the black majority of citizens in Tuskegee, AL. The case Gomillion versus Lightfoot ultimately yielded a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the issue of redistricting. The decision in the case is also recognized by legal scholars as a major step forward in the dual causes of civil and voting rights. Charles Gomillion will long be remembered as a pioneer who took a firm stand on principle and by so doing paved the way for major advances in the cause of equality. His legacy is [[Page S 17928]] that of social progress; his political moderation and temperament present an outstanding example of how to work within the constitutional system to effect positive change. I extend my condolences to his family. I ask that a New York Times article on the landmark remapping case be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times] Charles Gomillion, 95, Figure in Landmark Remap Case, Dies (By Robert McG. Thomas, Jr.) Charles G. Gomillion, who led the fight that brought political power to the black majority in Tuskegee, Ala, with the assistance of a landmark Supreme Court case that bears his name, died on Oct. 4 at a hospital in Montgomery, Ala. He was 95 and until his recent return to Tuskegee had lived the last 25 years in Washington and Roebling, N.J. Mr. Gomillion, a native of Edgefield, S.C., had a long and distinguished career as a sociology professor and dean at Tuskegee University, but it was his role as a civic leader that made Charles Goode Gomillion a footnote to constitutional legal history in 1960. As the president of the Tuskegee Civic Association, an organization he had helped found in 1941, he was the lead plaintiff in a suit that successfully challenged a blatant act of gerrymandering designed to exclude all but a handful of black voters from municipal elections. Alarmed by a voter registration drive led by Mr. Gomillion's organization, the Alabama Legislature redrew the town's boundries in 1957, leaving Tuskegee University and all but a handful of black families outside the city limits. What had been a perfect square was now a 28-sided figure that some likened to a snake and others to a sea dragon. Whatever the trope, the lines had been so skillfully drawn that although as many as 12 black voters remained inside a city that once had 5,400 black residents, not a single one of the city's 1,310 white residents had been excluded. Mr. Gomillion and 11 other association members filed Federal suit seeking to bar Mayor Philip M. Lightfoot and other city officials from enforcing the state statute on the ground that it was a transparent effort to circumvent the 15th Amendment's voting guarantees. Two lower courts, citing a 1946 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Felix Frankfurter, ruled that such state action was beyond judicial review. When the case, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, came before the Supreme Court in 1960. Justice Frankfurter, describing the new configuration as ``an uncouth 28-sided figure,'' found otherwise and so did all eight of his colleagues. Deftly distinguishing Gomillion, from the 1946 case, which involved Congressional districts of unequal population in Illinois, Justice Frankfurter said the Tuskegee case involved ``affirmative action'' by legislature that ``singled out a readily isolated segment of a racial minority for special discriminatory treatment.'' He and seven other justices said that a statute that had the effect of disenfranchising black voters would be a violation of the 15th Amendment. Justice Charles E. Whittaker, suggesting that there would be no disenfranchisement since the excluded former Tuskegee residents could vote in county elections said it would instead be a violation of the 14th Amendment. The case was sent back to District Court and the next year Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. declared the statute was indeed unconstitutional. The former city limits were restored and within years the black majority has taken over both the city and county governments, much to the consternation of Mr. Comillion, who served for a while on the school board. A soft-spoken moderate who had worked quietly to enlist the support of liberal-minded white allies in Tuskegee, he was dismayed when a plan to integrate local schools was sabotaged by Gov. George C. Wallace. The Governor ordered the schools closed, creating such rancor that white residents created a private school, black radicals swept Mr. Gomillion and other moderates aside and in turn white families fled. Today, only a handful of white families remain in Tuskegee. As his dream of a truly integrated community, with black and white leaders working together for the common good, died, Mr. Gomillion, who retired from Tuskegee in 1970, left, too. Although his moderate approach was rejected by a majority of the black voters, at least one of the former radicals now regrets it. ``The man was right,'' Otis Pinkard said yesterday, recalling that he had once led the faction that opposed the Gomillion approach, ``We should not have run all the white families out of town.'' Mr. Gomillion is survived by a daughter, Gwendolyn Chaires of Roebling; three grandchildren; three great-grandchildren, and one great-great-grandchild.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, our long-time Senate Chaplain and dear friend, Dr. Richard C. Halverson, has passed away, just 8\1/2\ months after his retirement. He retired in March, after more than 14 years of distinguished service to this body. During his tenure as our Chaplain, Dr. Halverson proved himself over and over again not only to be a comforting spiritual guide, but an understanding, knowledgeable counselor. His ministry and support helped us immeasurably as we wrestled with difficult personal, political and policy issues. Dick Halverson was superb at arranging for guest Chaplains, thereby giving wide representations to the many diverse religious faiths and denominations in our Nation. As Chaplain, he provided pastoral services for Members and our staffs--in particular to staffs, policemen. Every conceivable person that worked in the Senate felt his influence, knew him as a friend. He was a tremendous help to them in their personal problems. His soothing countenance and understanding manner made us feel more at home here in Washington. Sworn in on February 2, 1981, the Reverend Dr. Richard Halverson was the 60th Senate Chaplain. A native of North Dakota, he was a graduate of Wheaton College and the Princeton Theological Seminary. He held honorary doctoral degrees from Wheaton and Gordon Colleges, and served churches in Kansas City, MO; Coalinga and Hollywood, CA; and for 23 years at his last pastorate at the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD. Dr. Halverson was deeply involved as an associate in the international prayer breakfast movement in Washington, and I had the personal pleasure of working directly with him on this project during the time he served here in the Senate. He was involved with the prayer breakfast for almost 40 years. He also served as chairman of the board of World Vision and president of Concern Ministries, and authored several books, including ``A Day at a Time,'' ``Be Yourself . . . and God's,'' ``Between Sundays,'' ``No Greater Power,'' and ``We the People.'' Richard Halverson was an outstanding example of why the Senate has always had a chaplain. He was completely devoted to the Senate and we are grateful for his many years of service. We appreciate him, we will miss him, and we extend our sincerest condolences to his wife Doris, his son Chris, and all their family. Dr. Halverson left his mark on this body, and it is not the same without him. The Senate is better for having had his guidance and wisdom for 14 years, and the Nation and world are better for having had him for all the years of his life. He was a true blessing.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, for several years, La Colline restaurant has been designated by Washingtonian magazine as one of the area's best eating establishments. To those of us on Capitol Hill, it has become somewhat of an institution. Last month, the magazine Report on Business designated our own La Colline as one of the world's 20 best restaurants for business, reflecting a national, even international, following. On behalf of the Senate, I congratulate my friends at La Colline for receiving this honor, and ask that the Report on Business article on La Colline be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From Report on Business, October 1995] ``I Know a Place'' The largest media merger in U.S. history was set in motion by a chat, over dinner, between Disney chairman Michael Eisner and Capital Cities chairman Thomas Murphy. It's not important that we know exactly what the two men ate, or whether the chef is now entertaining bids for the movie rights to the menu. What's important is that $19 billion (U.S.) eventually changed hands because something about the style, the personality, the rightness of the setting allowed two executives to get friendly over food. No one says the outcome of a working lunch hinges on the amount of lemongrass deployed in the scallop ravioli. But when you're dealing while you dine, selecting the right restaurant matters. At home, you know what works, which place fits the tenor and times of your business. You may even know the name of the maitre d', and so you get the right table, and Marco brings the S. Pellegrino with lime without you even having to ask. When you're out in the world, on someone else's turf, selecting the ideal spot for Tuesday's get-to-know-session gets trickier. One wants to be au courant (nothing could be deadlier than appearing drastically out of date), but one wants not to be brushing chairs with the latest grunge music phenoms. Once you sit down, applying the rules that work at home can be disastrous--every city's corporate style is different. Many Atlantans like to brandish a smoking stogie the first chance they get. Try that in Toronto and waiters will pull back your thumbs until you cry. To help you avoid the pitfalls among the profiteroles, we've enlisted writers familiar with the current attitudes and idiosyncracies of the corporate communities in 18 of the world's most important cities. Their job: To find the restaurants that work best, because they reflect the times and tastes of the places where Canadians go to do business. The only safer choice is not even an option, because when the firm wants you out there, you can't order in.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to an outstanding long-time member and president of the Alabama Farmers Cooperative [AFC], John W. Anderson, who retired from his post effective September 30, 1995. John was named president of AFC on December 13, 1989. He became a member in 1969. During those 26 years, he served in various capacities at AFC, including his management of the Anderson's Peanuts Division from 1984 to 1989. Anderson's Peanuts was founded in 1933 by John's father, Robert B. Anderson, and acquired by AFC in 1969. Since that time, the peanut division has grown steadily and now includes buying points, shelling plants, and storage facilities in more than 20 locations. It is a major supplier of both domestic and export peanuts. John currently serves on the board of directors of the Mississippi Chemical Corp., and has previously served on the boards of the National Peanut Council, the Southeastern Peanut Association, Commercial Bank, and Andalusia Hospital. He is a past president of the Alabama Crop Improvement Association and was selected as its Man of the Year in 1988. A native of Andalusia, AL, John and his wife, the former Evelyn Wilder, have three grown children and five grandchildren. He has a degree in industrial management from Auburn University. He will spend-- and no doubt enjoy--his retirement in Destin, FL, near two of the children. So, they will be properly surrounded by grandchildren. John's leadership at AFC will be sorely missed, but his friendship, guidance, and example will continue to benefit the organization for many years to come. I commend him for a job well done, and wish him all the best for a long, happy, and healthy retirement. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Sheffield, AL mayor Laughlin Ashe passed away recently. In the 3 short years that he served as mayor of his hometown, Ashe developed a reputation for integrity and honesty that is seldom enjoyed by officeholders. Many of those who worked with and for him say he deserves full credit for the economic revival of this city in northwest Alabama. Laughlin Ashe looked after the best interests of his town to the very best of his abilities--abilities that were considerable. He was loyal to his friends and he was always true to his word. His was an effective style that yielded true leadership. He had a multitude of friends who will truly miss him. I am one of them. After he was elected mayor in 1992, Ashe went about building consensus and bringing people together in order to rebuild the downtown area of Sheffield. His upbeat and forthright attitude spilled over into his work. He never allowed his serious illness to dampen his desire to serve and finish projects he had initiated and hoped to see completed. His dignity and spirit during his illness were reflections of the qualities that made him a successful mayor and wonderful human being. He often remarked to close friends that being Sheffield mayor was the only job he ever really wanted. He was the coowner of Ashe-Box Insurance for several years, but sold his interest in the business after his election to the full-time mayor's job. Laughlin Ashe was a friend to many, a consummate gentleman, and a compassionate father. He had an undying love for his city. Even before becoming mayor, he was Sheffield's self-appointed No. 1 cheerleader. He will be missed by all of us who had the pleasure of knowing him and watching him in action. Last summer, Mayor Ashe met with editors of the TimesDaily newspaper for an interview to be published after his death. I ask unanimous consent that the account of that interview, from the September 16, 1995, TimesDaily be printed in the Record. I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife, Debbie, and their family in the wake of this immeasurable loss.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Huntsville, AL, native Patrick William Richardson received the 1995 Arthritis Foundation's James Record Humanitarian Award at a reception and dinner before an audience of his friends and peers recently at the Von Braun Civic Center. The Alabama chapter of the Friends of the Arthritis Foundation seeks to honor a person actively concerned in promoting human welfare through philanthropic works and interest in social reform. Pat Richardson attended law school at the University of Alabama and began his practice with the family law firm, where he was eventually joined by two of his sons. He has distinguished himself in the legal profession and in civic pursuits. He has received many honors as an attorney. He served as president of the Alabama State Bar. He conceived and spearheaded the establishment of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the UAH Foundation, on which he continues to served as a trustee. He also had a key role in the formation of Randolph School and is still active as a lifetime trustee. With the enthusiastic backing of his wife, Mary, Pat has served in the leadership and has actively supported numerous civic campaigns and enterprises. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial detailing the career and accomplishments of Pat Richardson appearing in the September 20 edition of the Huntsville Times be printed in the Record. I congratulate and commend Pat for receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in my State of Alabama, the courts have consistently held that the damages recoverable under the wrongful death statute are punitive as distinguished from actual or compensatory damages. For the past 140 years, the Alabama Supreme Court has interpreted this statute as imposing punitive damages for any conduct which causes death, regardless of the degree of negligence or capability. The premise for this interpretation is the belief that all people are worth the same, and this interpretation stimulates diligence in protection of natural right to live, without respect to personal condition or disability of the person so protected. Breed v. Atlanta, B & CRR, 241 Ala. 640, 4 So.2d 315 (1941). Therefore, the entire focus of a wrongful death civil action in Alabama is on the cause of the death. The amendment I am offering provides that punitive damage awards made in wrongful death cases should not be included in gross income Alabama where only punitive damages can be recovered for a wrongful death. Taking into account the revenue aspects of the Finance Committee provision, I have narrowly drafted this amendment. This amendment would only effect my State of Alabama. Of all the 50 States, Alabama has a different and unique recovery in the event a decision is made by a court or jury in regard to the death of an individual, whether it be brought by negligence or any form of action. A person cannot prove, in a wrongful death case in Alabama, compensatory damages. An Alabama plaintiff cannot show his wages, his doctor bills, or anything similar of an economic or noneconomic nature. Therefore the award granted in such a case would be fully taxable by the Internal Revenue Service. For this reason I see the tax effect of the current provision as unfair to those Alabama victims and their families and the amendment as an equitable solution. I strongly support this amendment. I think it is the correct language to narrowly address what would be an intolerable tax burden on the grieving families of Alabama victims who are killed by negligence or by gross negligence or recklessness or wantonness or any type of proof that is necessary to prove a cause of action. I think the Senate ought to adopt this fair and equitable amendment.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks about the effects of the proposal to reduce projected Medicaid expenditures by over $186 billion over 7 years on those in Alabama--poor mothers and children, the disabled, and the elderly--who count on Medicaid for their medical and long-term care. First, and most importantly, the Republicans proposal, if adopted, would immediately place the Alabama Medicaid Program in a state of utter chaos. It would place a gun to the head of the Governor and State legislature. They would be forced to make immediate, savage cuts--about 21 percent--in the program. These cuts, over $386 million, would have to be imposed the current fiscal year, starting in the second quarter of the year. Let me be very clear about this. These cuts would be imposed on the Medicaid budget that has been in effect since October 1, 1995. The only alternative available to these cuts would be an immediate major increase in taxes on the people of Alabama. This would not happen given the ``no new taxes'' pledge of our Republican Governor. My second observation is that this sudden cut is only part of the almost $3 billion hit the Republican bill would impose on Alabama. I know the other side claims that Alabama and other States can easily handle these cuts by achieving greater efficiencies in the program. Well, sure they can, and I can tell you how. They can cut poor people off the program by restricting eligibility. For those who remain, access to care can be cut by simply reducing payments to providers, doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes, below the costs of their services. At that point, these services will no longer be available. Finally, Mr. President, our Republican colleagues repeatedly assert that all of these cuts are not real, they are simply reductions in the rate of increase. However, as we have finally had an opportunity to examine the details of the bill, we find that in some important instances this is simply not the case. For example, the Medicaid proposal cuts funds going to hospitals that care for a disproportionate share of patients that do not have insurance or other means to pay for their care as reduced immediately by 56 percent. I repeat, this is a real cut of $185 million. According to Dr. Claude Bennett, President of UAB, almost 30 percent of Alabamians are medically indigent and responsibility for providing care to them falls largely upon their University Hospital. Dr. Bennett is correctly concerned that it can continue to shoulder this burden which will surely increase in the face of these cuts. Now, I know, Mr. President, that in the backrooms the majority is continuing to cut deals in an effort to fix up this disaster. States are pitted against States. If Alabama gets its situation improved, which it must, the poor in some other States will suffer. The bottom line is this--these Medicaid cuts are simply too much, too soon. Our State will not be able to cope without hurting people. We must rethink what we are doing.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to talk about safety nets. The policy relative to agriculture is designed around a safety net. They have target price tied to some degree to the cost of production. This is a policy that has been established where there is no payment in good years. When you have a bad year, you need a safety net. The proposal in the House eliminates the safety net. The proposal in the Senate puts gaping holes in the safety net for farmers. The idea of doing away with farm programs over a period of time, in my judgment, fails to realize the calamities, the disasters, that farmers face. They are subject to weather, they are subject to foreign competition, to price changes, all sorts of disastrous effects that can occur to the market. I think we are making a serious mistake. We have cut agriculture programs from $30 million in 1986 down to $9 million last year. Here we come along with a $13.7 billion further cut in agriculture over 7 years. I think it is too much. We are not doing right by the farmer. We are doing away with the policy of safety net.

Mr. HEFLIN. I want to mention, also, the safety net in regard to rural hospitals and the people. In effect, what we are doing under the Medicaid and Medicare situation, we are eliminating a safety net for hospitals for rural America. In my judgment that is a mistake. Safety nets go across the board. In my judgment, this bill is wrong in regard to what it does to rural America.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon be faced with an up- or-down vote on proposals of mammoth proportions. These proposals will directly affect virtually every segment of the government and every citizen of this country. For some, the consequences will be positive. For the vast majority, however, the consequences will be bad--in some cases, like for the elderly, students, and working class, the effects will be economically devastating. While this package as written will significantly reduce the deficit, at least in the short term, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not it will ultimately balance the budget by 2002. Some of the savings are artificial or even lose money despite producing CBO-scored savings. As we all know, future congressional action is likely to reduce other savings currently assumed by this plan. A major portion of the projected savings in this plan come from Medicare and Medicaid. Welfare reform, nutrition programs, the earned income tax credit, farm programs, and student loans are other areas facing enormous cuts. I am strongly in favor of deficit reduction and, ultimately, the elimination of the national debt. I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I supported the 1993 reconciliation bill which has already led to significant reductions in our annual deficits. But as with any omnibus legislation of this type, there is a right and wrong way to pursue the same goal. Themes and patterns emerge. Priorities and process do matter, and it appears that on balance, the priorities in the package before us are seriously misguided. What our colleagues on the other side are attempting is to place a vastly disproportionate share of the pain which will inevitable result from cuts of this magnitude on those least able to absorb it--working people, the elderly, students. There is a bitter flavor that this package produces, and you do not have to bite off and chew on its details to taste its bitterness. Its basic ingredients were listed in the blue-print the Senate passed several months ago, but as they have been mixed together and as they have simmered in the context of this reconciliation package, they have become dramatically more bitter. The theme throughout is to benefit those who have already benefitted greatly in this society, and to punish those who are simply trying to get by or to realize a share of the American dream. I have several major concerns surrounding this legislation, but the most disturbing are the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. The plan is to cut Medicare growth by $270 billion over 7 years. In addition to slowing the growth of spending from 10 percent a year to about 6.4 percent, it mandates a major restructuring of the program to supposedly give Medicare enrollees a wide range of options to join private health plans. I am concerned that instead of options, however, senior citizens will instead be faced with fewer alternatives, and will be forced into certain plans because they have no choice. It is my understanding that $89 billion in savings would rescue the Medicare Program, but we are considering a bill which cuts it by $270 billion. The proposed $270 billion of savings is vastly more than is needed to preserve the solvency of the program. Therefore, we need honest answers as to why we are attempting to write into law a $270 billion reduction. The direction we are going will ultimately cause senior citizens to be charged more for health care while receiving less in Medicare, all the while financing a tax break for those in the upper income brackets. A great portion of the savings in Medicare would result by raising the part B premium. The premiums that our senior citizens pay would rise from the $46.10 per month to more than $90 by the Year 2002. I have reservations and misgivings with regard to any Medicare reform that threatens the access to, and quality of, health care for senior citizens. Specifically, this bill would cut inpatient hospital service, home health care services, extended care services, hospice care, physicians services, outpatient hospital services, diagnostic tests, and other important services to our senior citizens. In addition to reduction in services, the following immediate burdens would be placed on our senior citizens: For Fiscal Year 1996, the monthly premium would rise to $54. Participants in the part B program would be required to pay the first $150 of expenses out-of-pocket rather than the current $100 deductible. This would rise by $10 annually through the year 2002. All these in combination with the proposal to raise the eligibility age to 67 leads me to believe that seniors are being singled out to bear the brunt of budget cuts. We all realize that the Medicare Program cannot continue functioning indefinitely as it is now, but the cure is certainly not the Republican plan. Not only do these proposals cut Medicare, but Medicaid is being reduced by $187 billion over the next 7 years. For the past 30 years, the Medicaid Program has been America's health and long-term care safety net. The Republican proposal is to repeal Medicaid, slash its Federal funding over the next 7 years by 20 percent, and to turn remaining Federal funds over to the States in the form of a block grant. According to the American Health Care Association, in 1993, 43 percent of the cost of Medicaid payments was born by the States. Under the block grant proposal, by 2002, the state share would be 56 percent--a 13-percent increase in just 7 short years. In a State like Alabama, which is habitually faced with budget proration, the effects of such additional burdens will be huge and devastating. The National Association of Counties strongly opposes the block granting of Medicaid and the loss of a Federal guarantee to benefits. In a letter sent to my office yesterday, its executive director, Larry E. Naake, wrote, We do not believe that states will find enough budgetary efficiencies without reducing eligibility . . . Individuals will continue to have health needs, regardless of the payor source. That is why we have always supported the intergovernmental nature of the Medicaid program and the assurance that there is some minimum level of coverage guaranteed to eligible individuals, regardless of the state in which they reside. The Democratic plan would reform Medicaid, not repeal it. It would restrain the rate of growth in Federal Medicaid spending in a responsible manner, not slash spending so much that huge cutbacks in eligibility, benefits, and payments to providers are inevitable. It would maintain a Federal fiscal partnership with the States for health and long-term care, not break the commitment to assist States and localities in paying for care to vulnerable Americans. These proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid funding would also have a devastating impact on hospitals and health care systems since providers will take the brunt of $270 billion Medicare reductions. Alabama would get $1.45 billion less in Federal Medicaid assistance over the next 7 years. Such a drastic cut will have a profound effect on the ability of health care providers to meet the ever-increasing needs of the community and will also increase costs for those with private insurance plans. On the other hand, the right kinds of decisions could set the course for restructuring these programs in ways that will enable providers to deliver quality care more efficiently. These extreme cuts to Medicare also threaten health care for millions of people of all ages living in rural America. Medicare spending in rural communities will be cut by $57.9 billion over the next 7 years--a 21-percent reduction by 2002. Since rural hospitals rely on Medicare for a significant proportion of their revenue, they will be particularly hard hit. Some will be forced to close altogether. Hospitals in rural areas are few and far between. A hospital closing affects all rural residents in the vicinity, not just seniors on Medicare. Under the GOP plan, these Americans will be forced to drive further to the nearest hospital, putting lives at risk. As an alternative to closing, rural hospitals could turn to local residents to pay more for services or to pay higher taxes to subsidize their hospitals. So, taxpayers in rural America will be forced to pay more in order to protect access to health care as well as the quality of their services. Seniors in rural areas already have a limited choice for doctors and this plan will result in fewer doctors accepting Medicare patients or doctors charging seniors more. Also with regard to rural America and agriculture, there are several provisions which have potential hidden costs. The savings from the Wetlands Reserve Program, for example, do not continue in the years beyond 2002. CBO anticipates that in those years, the program would actually be more expensive under this legislation than under current law. In addition, the removal of the requirement to purchase crop insurance will expose additional farmers to losses from poor weather, floods, and other natural disasters. In the past, Congress has responded to such events with supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. The removal of the crop insurance requirement provides budget savings for reconciliation but undermines a key element of last year's crop insurance reforms, which were intended to end the temptation for Congress to pass costly disaster assistance bills. If our past experience is any guide, the end result will be even higher Federal spending. I am also deeply dismayed over the $10.8 billion cuts in student loans, most of which will come out of students' and parents' pockets through higher interest payments. Each school would be required to pay a 0.85 percent fee on the amount of Federal loans made for students attending the school. This would undoubtedly be passed on to the students in some form. It would cap the direct lending program at 20 percent of student loan volume. Rather than saving money, this change would only produce paper savings as a result of new scoring rules adopted by the majority. Mr. President, in this Nation, we have prided ourselves on the quality and accessibility of our system of higher education. Today, through student loans, Pell grants, work-study, and other programs, virtually every person who wants to attend college is able to do so. We have made the correct decision that economic circumstances should not prevent a bright, young mind from being able to obtain a college degree if that is what they want to pursue. Why on Earth would we want to retreat from that commitment by making higher education less accessible to millions of academically qualified students? The bottom line is that to the vast majority of families who depend on student loans to pay tuition, slashing student loans will mean the difference between enrolling their children in college and not sending them. Finally, Mr. President, I want to discuss my concerns over the changes to the earned income tax credit, which former President Reagan once described this way: ``The EITC is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.'' Republicans in the Senate as well have supported the EITC for many years. The plan before us dramatically increases taxes on the working poor by scaling back the EITC that so many Republicans have strongly supported in the past. The plan increases taxes by $43 billion over the next 7 years. This means an immediate $281 average tax increase on 17 million low-income American taxpayers. By the year 2005, 21 percent of all families currently eligible for the EITC would no longer be eligible. While its supporters praise hard work and self-reliance, their plan will make life more difficult for millions working in demanding, low-paying jobs. In 1993, when the EITC was expanded, the Treasury Department estimated that approximately 374,700 Alabama families would qualify for a financial break under the plan. Actually, almost 388,000 families ultimately qualified under the EITC, a total of 22 percent of the entire returns filed. If this plan is adopted, these hundreds of thousands of families and millions of others across the country will see this benefit evaporate. Approximately 17 million low-income working Americans will see an immediate tax increase averaging $302; that tax increase will grow to an average of $471 per year by 2005. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has stated: ``Low-income working families will suffer if the Senate Finance Committee's cut to the earned income tax credit becomes law. It is fundamentally unwise to raise income taxes on America's working families while high-income taxpayers are receiving the benefits of a tax cut.'' As I stated before, this reconciliation package's priorities are misplaced, its effects unfair, and its assumptions dubious. In its current form, it will and should be vetoed. We should and will be forced to start over after the veto. It would be to our benefit and the benefit of the American people to return this legislative bitter pill back to its container now and come up with a plan that is equitable and that gets the job done the right way. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of S. 1328, a bill to amend the commencement dates of temporary judgeships that were created under section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990. This legislation created 13 temporary judgeships in districts throughout the United States, one of which is in the northern district of Alabama, and the act provided that the first vacancy in the office of a district judge in those 13 districts occurring after December l, l995 would not be filled. The reason this legislation is necessary is because delays occurred in the nominations and confirmations of the 13 judgeships created by the 1990 act. Thus, many districts have had a relatively short time in which to utilize the services of these temporary judgeships. For instance, in the northern district of Alabama, our new judge, the Honorable Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, was not confirmed until May 28, l991. She has served with remarkable distinction and is a very hard working and dedicated U.S. district judge. What is important to remember, as we seek to pass this legislation, is that the delays in filling these temporary judgeships frustrates the intent of Congress back in 1990 to reduce the backlog of cases pending in these 13 districts. The bill before this body today provides that the first district judge vacancy occurring 5 or more years after the confirmation date of the judge appointed to fill the temporary judgeship will not be filled. Thus, each of these 13 districts, with the exception of the western district of Michigan which requested to be excluded from coverage under this bill, will benefit from an extra judge for a minimum of 5 years regardless of how long the judge's confirmation took. I urge my colleagues' support for S. 1328.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to address the need of providing annual, automatic cost-of-living increases for the Federal Judiciary. This legislation would achieve two goals. First, it would repeal Section 140 of Public Law 97-42 (28 U.S.C. Sec. 461 note) a provision which was enacted in a continuing appropriation resolution in 1981. Second, it would delink Federal judges from Members of Congress and executive schedule employees of the executive branch with respect to receiving cost of living adjustments and would guarantee that Federal judges would automatically receive such annual adjustments, assuming economic conditions so justified. Let me share with my colleagues some of the history relating to Section 140, and the reasons why I think it should be repealed. The Federal Salary Act of 1967 established a commission on executive, legislative and judicial salaries, which was popularly referred to as the ``Quadrennial Commission.'' The purpose of this commission was to review executive schedule positions (federal judges, Members of congress, and high ranking officials in all branches) and to make recommendations on how salaries should be adjusted. In 1975 Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, which provided, for the first time, for annual cost-of- living adjustments for executive schedule officials. This statute was designed to give Federal judges, Members of Congress, and other high ranking officials the same annual adjustment that was given to other Federal employees. In October 1975, these executive schedule officials received a cost-of-living adjustment; however, from 1977-1981, Congress withheld cost-of-living adjustments for these officials. In the case of United States v. Will, 449 US 200 (1980), the Supreme Court issued a ruling which resulted in an increase in the salaries for Federal judges. Two years later, Congress adopted an appropriation for Fiscal Year 1982, which provided in Section 140 that judges would not automatically receive an increase under the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, ``except as specifically authorized by act of Congress.'' The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 restored cost-of-living adjustments and amended the Adjustment Act, to provide for a method of computing annual pay adjustments for Federal judges and other executive schedule employees. Cost-of-living adjustments were provided for Federal judges in calendar years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. There have been no cost-of- living adjustments for Federal judges in 1994, 1995, nor it would appear in 1996. With regard to 1996, it appears that the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill will again deny a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges since we are proposing to deny ourselves such an adjustment and under current law, adjustments for Federal judges are linked to adjustments for Members of Congress. Having reviewed this history, it is my belief that Congress should take action to not only repeal Section 140, which currently bars cost- of-living adjustments in pay for Federal judges, except as specifically authorized by Congress, but to also delink such adjustments from those of Members of Congress and other executive schedule employees of the executive branch. Delinkage will remove Federal judges from the highly charged political atmosphere surrounding cost-of-living adjustments. This legislation does not seek to raise judicial pay, but is in an [[Page S 15347]] attempt to avoid a diminution in judicial compensation by allowing salaries to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. Remember, judges are not like Members of Congress or high ranking executive schedule employees of the executive branch of the Federal Government. Members of Congress come and go, and likewise, executive schedule employees are high ranking political employees such as Cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, and deputy assistant secretaries, etc. They, too, being short-term employees, come and go from the private sector to the public sector. Federal judges are different in this regard. They make a lifetime commitment to public service as Federal judges. They should be able to plan their financial futures based on the reasonable expectation that their compensation will at least keep even with annual cost-of-living increases. I think it is imperative to remove the judicial pay process from the political arena. In the middle of the 1980's, this issue was widely discussed on television talk shows and various news programs, and it was very damaging to attracting top quality individuals to serve as Federal judges. We also know that there were a number of resignations in the Federal judiciary in the 1980's, because it was becoming very difficult to attract top individuals to serve on the Federal bench. I believe that we must continue to attract and retain judges from all walks of life who have demonstrated superior legal skills whether they have served as State judges, private practitioners, academicians, prosecutors, or public defenders. If we fail to deal with this matter, we will soon attract only those judges who are independently wealthy and do not have to worry about providing for their families on a Federal judiciary salary. I think this is unwise, and I hope that Congress will have the courage to repeal section 140 of Public Law 97-92 and further delink their cost-of-living adjustments from Members of Congress and executive schedule employees, thereby removing this matter from the political process once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, when the Senate first voted October 12 on the cloture petition relative to H.R. 927, the Dole-Helms Cuba sanctions bill, I voted no. Like most of my Democratic colleagues and some Republicans, I strongly opposed title III of the bill as written because of its detrimental effect on U.S. Federal courts. Indeed most of our debate over the last few days on the bill has focused on title III's provisions allowing suits to be filed against companies that acquired property confiscated by the Castro regime after it took power in 1959. This provision of the measure flouted international law, threatened already severely overburdened courts with costly new litigation, and jeopardized our relations with major trading partners who do business with Cuba. If adopted, this provision would have exponentially expanded the pool of persons in the United States seeking compensation from the Cuban Government for their claims. There could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of persons who would be eligible to file such lawsuits. While no one knows for certain how many lawsuits could have been filed under title III, if even a fraction of those newly eligible did so, it would prove costly to the Federal courts and greatly complicate the tasks of resolving claims and assisting Cuba's economic recovery once the Castro regime is gone. After that first cloture vote, I discussed these issues during private conversations with several of my colleagues who supported the measure, including Senator Helms, and by the time of the second vote on October 17, I had obtained assurances that title III would be substantially modified or eliminated entirely. Therefore, I was able to support cloture when the second vote occurred. I am happy that we were able to reach a compromise on this legislation which allowed the third cloture vote to succeed on a solid bipartisan vote of 98 to 0 after the announcement that title III would be stricken from the bill.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to address the need of providing annual, automatic cost-of-living increases for the Federal Judiciary. This legislation would achieve two goals. First, it would repeal Section 140 of Public Law 97-42 (28 U.S.C. Sec. 461 note) a provision which was enacted in a continuing appropriation resolution in 1981. Second, it would delink Federal judges from Members of Congress and executive schedule employees of the executive branch with respect to receiving cost of living adjustments and would guarantee that Federal judges would automatically receive such annual adjustments, assuming economic conditions so justified. Let me share with my colleagues some of the history relating to Section 140, and the reasons why I think it should be repealed. The Federal Salary Act of 1967 established a commission on executive, legislative and judicial salaries, which was popularly referred to as the ``Quadrennial Commission.'' The purpose of this commission was to review executive schedule positions (federal judges, Members of congress, and high ranking officials in all branches) and to make recommendations on how salaries should be adjusted. In 1975 Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, which provided, for the first time, for annual cost-of- living adjustments for executive schedule officials. This statute was designed to give Federal judges, Members of Congress, and other high ranking officials the same annual adjustment that was given to other Federal employees. In October 1975, these executive schedule officials received a cost-of-living adjustment; however, from 1977-1981, Congress withheld cost-of-living adjustments for these officials. In the case of United States v. Will, 449 US 200 (1980), the Supreme Court issued a ruling which resulted in an increase in the salaries for Federal judges. Two years later, Congress adopted an appropriation for Fiscal Year 1982, which provided in Section 140 that judges would not automatically receive an increase under the Executive Salary Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, ``except as specifically authorized by act of Congress.'' The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 restored cost-of-living adjustments and amended the Adjustment Act, to provide for a method of computing annual pay adjustments for Federal judges and other executive schedule employees. Cost-of-living adjustments were provided for Federal judges in calendar years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. There have been no cost-of- living adjustments for Federal judges in 1994, 1995, nor it would appear in 1996. With regard to 1996, it appears that the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill will again deny a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal judges since we are proposing to deny ourselves such an adjustment and under current law, adjustments for Federal judges are linked to adjustments for Members of Congress. Having reviewed this history, it is my belief that Congress should take action to not only repeal Section 140, which currently bars cost- of-living adjustments in pay for Federal judges, except as specifically authorized by Congress, but to also delink such adjustments from those of Members of Congress and other executive schedule employees of the executive branch. Delinkage will remove Federal judges from the highly charged political atmosphere surrounding cost-of-living adjustments. This legislation does not seek to raise judicial pay, but is in an [[Page S 15347]] attempt to avoid a diminution in judicial compensation by allowing salaries to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. Remember, judges are not like Members of Congress or high ranking executive schedule employees of the executive branch of the Federal Government. Members of Congress come and go, and likewise, executive schedule employees are high ranking political employees such as Cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, and deputy assistant secretaries, etc. They, too, being short-term employees, come and go from the private sector to the public sector. Federal judges are different in this regard. They make a lifetime commitment to public service as Federal judges. They should be able to plan their financial futures based on the reasonable expectation that their compensation will at least keep even with annual cost-of-living increases. I think it is imperative to remove the judicial pay process from the political arena. In the middle of the 1980's, this issue was widely discussed on television talk shows and various news programs, and it was very damaging to attracting top quality individuals to serve as Federal judges. We also know that there were a number of resignations in the Federal judiciary in the 1980's, because it was becoming very difficult to attract top individuals to serve on the Federal bench. I believe that we must continue to attract and retain judges from all walks of life who have demonstrated superior legal skills whether they have served as State judges, private practitioners, academicians, prosecutors, or public defenders. If we fail to deal with this matter, we will soon attract only those judges who are independently wealthy and do not have to worry about providing for their families on a Federal judiciary salary. I think this is unwise, and I hope that Congress will have the courage to repeal section 140 of Public Law 97-92 and further delink their cost-of-living adjustments from Members of Congress and executive schedule employees, thereby removing this matter from the political process once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HEFLIN

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Joe Allen Azbell--author, journalist, and adviser to Presidents and Governors--passed away on September 30 after a lengthy illness. He was city editor of the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper, a columnist for the Montgomery Independent, and the author of three books. While his formal education ended with the fifth grade, Joe's accomplishments are truly historic. He is credited with helping make the Montgomery bus boycott possible. Joining the staff of the Advertiser in 1947, within 5 years he had become one of the youngest city editors in the South. In December 1955, he ran a front-page story on the impending bus boycott. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., once remarked that the boycott might never have occurred without this pivotal article. Born during the Great Depression in a small Texas dustbowl town, Joe Azbell ran away from home at the age of 12 because his parents did not allow him to read books, and his thirst for knowledge could not be quenched. He hid in small-town libraries, figuring that the truant police would not look for him there. During World War II, he joined the Army Air Corps and began his career in journalism. Joe served as an advisor to every Alabama Governor going back to Gordon Persons. He was especially close to George Wallace, for whom he wrote speeches during his presidential campaign. He supposedly came up with the political slogan ``Send them a message'' for the campaign. John Chancellor of NBC called it the best political slogan of this century. He was also an advisor to every American President from Lyndon Johnson to George Bush. Much of the success Joe Azbell enjoyed over the years was due to his colorful personality and gift for getting along with all types of people. He had a genuine interest in people and thoroughly enjoyed getting to know them and talking to them. Likewise, people responded to his charm, humor, and honesty. Joe will be sorely missed by those who knew him both personally or only through his excellent reporting and commentary. I extend my sincerest condolences to his family in the wake of their tremendous loss.