[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11241-S11245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAREWELL ADDRESS TO AMERICA

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, all Members of the Senate are faced with 
difficult decisions almost on a daily basis. The day of my announcement 
not to seek a fourth term in the Senate--March 29, 1995--was one of the 
most difficult of my life. By that day, I had been wrestling with this 
decision for some time. There had been some health problems, but I was 
fully confident of running for and winning a fourth term. I have always 
loved campaigning, and getting back on the trail was a powerful 
temptation. The reality was, however, that another term would have 
taken me well beyond the normal age for retirement. I am 75 and would 
have been 81 by the end of another term. Ultimately, the decision was 
that the time had come to pass the torch to another generation.
  Anyone who has ever held a Senate seat understands the magnitude of 
this great constitutional responsibility. The Senate is an awesome 
institution, and the opportunity to serve there is one of the highest 
honors that can be bestowed upon any individual. For anyone in public 
life who has attained the confidence of the people to carry out such a 
responsibility, the decision to leave voluntarily is a difficult one, 
even when we know that it is best for ourselves, our State, and our 
Nation. It is a bittersweet decision that stems from a solemn 
responsibility. Those returning to the 105th Congress already know 
this; those who will be joining that Congress in the coming days will 
soon come to that realization.
  As Senators, we have to be students of the issues. It is important to 
be impartial, fair-minded, and willing to listen to opposing views. My 
decisions and votes have been based upon conscientious beliefs 
motivated by what I thought was in the best interests of my State and 
Nation, but sometimes tempered by the views of a sizable portion of my 
constituency. No doubt, Alabamians and my party were confounded at 
times, but hopefully, they understood that my positions were based on 
what I believed to be right.
  One of our responsibilities as Senators is to sometimes take stands 
and positions with which the majority of citizens in our States do not 
agree. The difficulty of taking such unpopular stands and decisions 
cannot be overestimated. It can be a wrenching experience, as was the 
vote on the 1993 budget reconciliation legislation which raised taxes--
even though primarily on a small number of wealthy individuals--but 
which also headed us in the right direction in terms of deficit 
reduction. This 1993 budget reconciliation bill had been grossly 
distorted and mischaracterized by its opponents almost beyond 
recognition. Several courageous Members of Congress who supported it 
were defeated in the next election. Since then, the economic and 
budgetary figures and forecasts show that supporting that bill was the 
right thing for the Nation.
  In any case, since our first duty under the Constitution is to our 
country as a whole, these times and politically difficult situations 
will inevitably arise. Rather than running away from these stands, 
Senators have to meet them directly, stand firm, and explain to our 
constituents why we believe we are right. Although they might never 
agree with us, over time, they will understand and respect us for 
assuming responsibility. This will be even more true in the new 
Congress, the Congress whose leaders, along with the President sworn in 
on January 20, 1997, will take the country right into the new century 
and millennium.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have had to oppose Supreme 
Court nominees I thought to be ill-suited by temperament or background 
to serve on the Nation's highest court. On other occasions, I have 
supported nominees whom I knew not to be popular among my constituents, 
but who deserved my support.
  Despite criticism that the Senate is no longer the great forum for 
debate and policymaking established by the Founders, there have been 
many examples of such debate during my tenure. These are times when the 
Senate as an institution soars, when Members are the statesmen they are 
elected to be.
  One such time was the debate on the resolution authorizing military 
action in the Persian Gulf in early 1991. It was one of those rare 
moments when each and every Member had to look deep within his or her 
soul and go on record telling the American people either why they would 
allow young men and women to be sent into harm's way without a 
declaration of war, or why they could oppose the President of the 
United States and an entire world coalition poised to thwart 
aggression. As each Senator spoke, you could see and feel the deep 
emotion that seemed to emanate from the very heart of each speaker. 
Each decision, each vote, was profoundly personal. Many of us had 
served in the military and knew something of the horrors of military 
operations, even if those operations were successful. I know of no one 
who did not understand the gravity of what we were deciding.

  Ultimately, the Senate voted narrowly, 52 to 47, to authorize the use 
of force to eject Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. Despite 
reservations and uncertainty, I was one of a few from my party who 
supported the authorization. All we could draw from in making this 
decision was our own experience and knowledge, our faith in the 
American Armed Forces, and the collective will of the civilian and 
military leaders to ensure victory. I would venture that most of us 
said a private prayer before casting our votes, hoping that we were 
doing the right thing and that events would vindicate us. I was struck 
at the sincerity and emotion surrounding this debate, and, as a 
Senator, was proud to have taken part. I thought to myself that this 
was the kind of debate the Founders envisioned.
  Another one of these dramatic and emotional debates took place on the 
Senate floor on July 22, 1993. One Senator had offered an amendment to 
pending legislation to grant an extension of the United Daughters of 
the Confederacy patent outside the normal

[[Page S11242]]

process established by the Patent and Trademark Office. Only a very 
small number of organizations had ever been granted patents by the 
Senate, with the United Daughters of the Confederacy being one of 
those. This extension by the Senate would place that body's stamp of 
approval on the group's patent. Part of its insignia is a Confederate 
national flag.
  Freshman Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, the only black 
Member of the Senate and the first-ever female black Member in all its 
history, came to the floor to oppose the amendment. She spoke 
eloquently on the floor of the issue of race, of symbolism, of 
division, and of intolerance. Her passion, candor, spirit, emotion, and 
determination moved the Chamber in a way that I have rarely witnessed. 
One by one, Members began articulating very personal statements about 
their feelings on race relations in this country and the lingering 
symbolism and emotions that complicate those relations.
  As I listened to the debate, I felt a deep personal conflict as to 
how I should vote on this amendment. I was torn between my love for my 
native South and the racial conflicts which remain in America today.
  I come from an ancestral background deeply rooted in the Old 
Confederacy. One of my great-grandfathers was one of the signers of the 
Ordinance of Secession by which the State of Alabama seceded from the 
Union in 1860. My paternal grandfather was a surgeon in the Confederate 
Army. History always provides perspectives on a particular time in the 
life of a nation, and I have always had a firm belief with regard to my 
family's background that they did what they thought was right at that 
time and in those circumstances. I have always revered my family and 
respected those who thought what they were doing at that particular 
time in our history was morally correct.
  Ultimately, it became clear that the issue was primarily one of 
symbolism. By adopting this amendment, which would put the Senate's 
stamp of approval on an insignia carrying the Confederate flag in a 
very special and honorific manner, we would not serve the causes of 
advancing race relations or healing wounds. It would not be a step 
forward. I felt that if my ancestors were alive today and witnessing 
that debate, they would stand for what is right and honorable and would 
want to take a symbolic step forward.
  In this case, one Senator, acting upon the courage of her convictions 
and her unique perspectives as an African-American, helped reverse a 
decision of the Senate. I thought again about how the Senate as an 
institution was fulfilling the promise of the Founders. New and 
returning Members of this body, as well as the House of 
Representatives, will no doubt face similar debates and issues which 
will test and challenge the Congress.
  Despite these proud moments in the life of the Senate and Congress, 
there is still the perception among the vast majority of Americans that 
the system as a whole does not work as it should. They feel strongly 
that government does not respond to their needs. In many cases, they 
view it as being totally irrelevant to their daily lives and 
experiences. Ironically, as more and more information about government 
has become available over the last decade, the alienation of the 
citizenry has increased. Despite the C-Span cameras, the proliferation 
of constituent-service staff, and the plethora of news, both written 
and broadcast, people still feel that they are somehow cut out of the 
political process. This is one of the gravest problems the new Congress 
and administration will face as they approach the next century, since 
it undermines the very legitimacy of our democratic form of government.

  There are any number of reasons for this ongoing alienation. Gridlock 
between the two Houses of Congress, between the political parties, and 
between the Congress and White House is most often cited as the primary 
reason for the public's disgust. A certain amount of what is called 
gridlock, however, is built into the system by the Constitution. 
Congress is, by design, an institution which moves rather slowly in 
making law. This is especially true of the Senate, where the wishes of 
a cohesive minority hold considerable sway. This is so the passions of 
the moment are allowed to cool before laws are passed. Careful 
deliberation, analysis, and long-range thinking were important to the 
Founders, and these are usually necessary ingredients in legislating. 
If anything, the Congress which will be sworn in shortly will not have 
enough of these ingredients. Few in their right mind will argue that it 
suffers from too much deliberation, analysis, or thought. In fact, it 
will need more.
  If we look back over the last few years and compare passed conditions 
with those in mid-1996, we see that we have made tremendous strides. We 
won the cold war; our economy is healthy; we have the lowest combined 
rates of unemployment and inflation in 27 years; the budget deficit is 
decreasing even faster than rosy projections earlier predicted; and our 
national defense and international diplomatic structure are strong. 
Millions of new jobs in basic industries like automobiles and 
construction have been created and for 3 years in a row, we have had a 
record number of new businesses started in our country. More and more 
businesses are making capital investments, a strong sign of economic 
prosperity. The rate of violent crime is coming down all across 
America, although we still have a long way to go to make our streets 
safe. Race relations are still not anywhere near what they should be, 
but civil rights laws have helped secure the promise of America for 
more of our citizens than ever. The road toward equal opportunity for 
all persons, regardless of race, color, gender, creed, or other station 
in life has many miles to go, but we should be proud of the progress we 
have made and build upon it for the future.
  In terms of the institution of Congress itself, there is no doubt 
that it has made great strides in terms of ethics and behavioral 
standards. People might not want to hear it or believe it, but the 
people we have serving in Congress today are the most ethical and least 
corrupt of any in its history. I served on the Senate Ethics Committee 
for a total of 13 years as either chairman or vice chairman, and can 
say definitively that the vast majority of Members tried their best to 
comply with ethical standards and rules. The perception that they are 
here to enrich themselves at taxpayers' expense is simply false. 
Senators were always coming to the Ethics Committee trying to comply 
with the rules, not to get around them. Of course, there are inevitable 
lapses, as would be the case with any large organization made up of 
people from all over the country and from all kinds of backgrounds, 
some of low standards of integrity. From the perspective of ``how it 
used to be,'' the taxpayers are vastly better off now than in decades 
passed, regardless of the perceptions and media distortions.
  We have accomplished a great deal and have made tangible progress. 
Why don't people recognize these areas of progress? Part of the answer 
undoubtedly lies in the fact that we no longer have a common, external 
enemy at which to direct our considerable energies. For the first 40 or 
so years after World War II, communism was our greatest threat. It 
caused the Government and the public to rally together toward its 
ultimate defeat. In the early 1990's, as that promise was realized, 
people seemed to turn toward one another and ask ``What now?"
  As I watched in amazement as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I couldn't 
help but feel that somehow, many Americans were missing the event's 
true significance. Our victory in the cold war did not seem to have the 
resonance around the country that one would expect. For decades, our 
entire defense and foreign policy had been formulated around the goal 
of fighting communism. It was truly astounding that our resources could 
now be channeled elsewhere. And yet, the passion, the excitement, the 
relief just didn't seem to be there. Almost immediately, a sizable 
segment of the population seemed to begin searching for another enemy. 
Unfortunately, there are those whose primary motivation is the hatred 
of an enemy. There was talk of a peace dividend. Various special 
interest groups staked their claims to pieces of that dividend, while 
others wanted to substantially reduce taxes. New enemies were found 
within our own borders as the competition arose for still-scarce 
resources.

  As the cold war ended, the mounting budget deficit and national debt 
became a policy issue. There would really

[[Page S11243]]

not be a peace dividend, as such, since our fiscal house was not in 
order. I had long supported a constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced budget, but by the mid-1990's, it had gained broad public 
support and majority support in Congress, but still not the two-thirds 
needed to send it to the States for ratification.
  Sadly, what brought us to such a serious budgetary state was a 
failure on the part of our Government to address our fiscal problems 
before they nearly spiralled out of control. It was the fault of the 
political parties, the Congress, and the President. But it was also the 
fault of the public for expecting and demanding so much, much of it 
contradictory to the long-term health of our economy. Government 
leaders should have had the courage to say no much more often than they 
did. We all have to accept responsibility for our mistakes if we are to 
move forward and continue to bring down the deficit. It does no good to 
blame each other; it does profound good to acknowledge mistakes and 
collectively dedicate ourselves to fiscal discipline and the modest 
sacrifice it requires.
  Regardless of the legitimacy of public perceptions, the alienation 
and frustration with our Government are real threats to the stability 
of our Nation. Unless they feel like they are a part of the process and 
able to influence its outcome, the alienation and frustration will only 
grow and intensify.
  For much of our history, our national leaders and political parties 
adopted mainstream, centrist policies aimed at securing economic 
security and promoting opportunity. Of course, there are times when 
this has not been the case, but Government has worked best when it has 
operated from the center of the spectrum. Only when we have strayed too 
far to the left or right have we fallen so out of favor with the 
citizenry. To a great degree, that is what has happened over the last 
few years, with Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans 
becoming more conservative. Since the vast majority of the people are 
politically moderate in their beliefs and values, they have become, in 
a sense, alienated from both sides, not comfortable with the extreme 
views the parties have adopted. The bipartisanship that is so crucial 
to the operation of Congress, especially the Senate, has been abandoned 
for quick fixes, sound bites, and, most harmfully, the frequent 
demonization of those with whom we disagree.
  It is supremely ironic that as we try to foster democratic principles 
throughout the rest of the world and have seen democracy make great 
strides in many areas, we seem to face our strongest threat from 
within. Some elected officials, media personalities, extreme elements 
within political parties, and single-issue organizations strive to pit 
one group of Americans against another. The focus on divisive issues 
has increased the alienation and driven us farther and farther apart.
  In my judgment, much of the answer to this alienation lies in what I 
call compassionate moderation. Instead of being so concerned with 
policies which are left and right, Government should be concerned with 
the principles of right and wrong that come from approaching issues in 
measured, moderate, and compassionate tones. Both compassion and 
moderation must be seeded in basic conservatism and responsibility, 
rooted to induce individualistic growth and opportunity. Even where 
voters opt for change, they do not favor extremism; instead, they want 
carefully crafted and nuanced policies that address the concerns of the 
majority and, where needed, the disadvantaged in our society. This is 
the kind of responsible and compassionate moderation upon which our 
Nation was founded. Our Constitution itself came about through a series 
of great compromises; it was not written by ideologues who clung to 
their way or no way. Compromise and negotiation--the hallmarks of 
moderation--aimed at achieving moderate, centrist policies for our 
country should not be viewed as negatives. They should be valued, for 
that is the only way to reach consensus on complicated issues and 
problems that face us.
  By being compassionately moderate in our attitudes, we can govern 
ourselves responsibly and reach the potential which we have yet to 
attain. Thomas Jefferson demonstrated a belief in the concept of 
compassionate moderation when he called for basic republican simplicity 
in institutions and manners. He knew that a limitation on Government 
did not mean the abdication of the Government's responsibility. 
Similarly, in his own farewell address to the Nation, President 
Eisenhower said that:

       It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to 
     integrate forces, new and old, within the principles of our 
     democratic system--ever aiming toward the supreme goals of 
     our free society.
  Both of these great leaders envisioned a strong, but limited, 
National Government which could balance competing interests in the 
pursuit of overall liberty and equality.
  During his term as Vice President, Jefferson once asked for a room in 
Baltimore's preeminent hotel. Not recognizing the Vice President, who 
had shown up alone and in soiled working clothes, the owner turned him 
away. Shortly after Jefferson's departure, the owner was told that he 
had just sent away the Vice President of the United States. The 
horrified proprietor immediately dispatched some of his workers to find 
Jefferson and offer him as many rooms as he liked. The Vice President 
had already taken a room at another, more modest, hotel, and sent the 
man who found him back to the owner with this message:

       Tell [the owner] that I value his good intentions highly, 
     but if he has no room for a dirty farmer, he shall have none 
     for the Vice President.

  Our Government's greatest successes have come about precisely because 
it has made room for dirty farmers and all kinds of hard workers. It 
has made room for those who want to work hard, but who might be 
disadvantaged by poverty, injustice, or oppression. It has never been 
the task of Government to guarantee success to everyone across-the-
board. Instead, it has been to ensure, through responsible sensitivity 
and compassion, that everyone has the opportunity to work toward the 
kind of life and success for which we all strive given the same 
opportunities. When we fall short, it should not be because Government 
has done the wrong thing, whether too much or too little--it should be 
only because we as individuals did not take advantage of the 
opportunities afforded by our free society through our Constitution and 
backed up by representative, democratic Government.
  The extreme elements of our Government must realize that compromise 
is not bad, that we can be compassionate and responsible at the same 
time by being moderate in our approach to public policy. No one of us 
can remake Government or society in our own image. With 535 Members of 
Congress, thousands of executive branch officials, constitutionally 
mandated checks and balances, shared power, and a strong two-party 
political system, compromise is an inherent necessity. If compromise is 
abandoned for rigid ideology, the system cannot work as it was 
intended. Frequently, it becomes a hostage to gridlock and inaction.
  If we look back over history, we see that moderation and centrism in 
Government have led to some rather remarkable achievements. As we 
ponder the cynicism and disfavor with which the Government is viewed 
today, it occurs to me that we may have, in some ways, become victims 
of our own successes. As more and more is taken for granted, standards 
are set higher, often unrealistically so. This results in recurring 
disappointment.
  In 1954, ours was a country where poll taxes separated millions of 
citizens from their basic right to vote. Restaurants, hotels, schools, 
and neighborhoods were totally segregated by race. Through the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and subsequent 
legislation, these Americans have been brought into the process and 
enfranchised. The Head Start Program, for example, remains one of the 
single most effective program ever designed for keeping high-risk 
children in school.
  My own civil rights record is one of which I am exceedingly proud. It 
has been publicly stated by black leaders that I was the first Senator 
from my State who believed in and supported the civil rights movement. 
I worked to secure the extension of the Voting Rights Act; to appoint 
African-Americans and women to the Federal bench and other Federal 
offices; to support historically black colleges; to ensure passage of 
the civil rights restoration bill; to help pass the fair housing bill;

[[Page S11244]]

and to establish a national holiday honoring the late Martin Luther 
King, Jr. My philosophy on the issue of civil rights has always been 
one of moderation, of trying, where possible, to get people to lower 
their voices and work together for progress. Again, by avoiding the 
lightning rod rhetoric of the extreme positions, we can successfully 
move forward.
  In 1955, only 63 percent of our high school students graduated. Those 
who did stay in school did not have access to advanced science or math 
courses in a majority of school districts until passage of the Defense 
Education Act of 1958. Higher education had traditionally been the 
preserve of the well to do. A full decade after the GI bill was signed 
into law, there were still only 430,000 college graduates each year. 
Following passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, college 
enrollment increased by 300 percent.

  Perhaps the largest public construction project in American history 
began with the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, which ultimately doubled 
the Nation's highway system and provided new corridors of growth. The 
National Highway System of today is the envy of the world and is a 
growing testimony to the strong, steady leadership of President 
Eisenhower, who did not shy away from the moderate label. Indeed, he 
eloquently championed the concept of balance in public affairs 
throughout his January 1961 farewell address to the Nation. Other 
legislation and policies guided technology into the marketplace. The 
leadership and vision of President John Kennedy in terms of space 
exploration led to the lunar landings, the commercialization of space, 
and numerous scientific advances. These projects were not advanced in 
the pursuit of a party's retaining power or in the interest of a 
particular ideology being thrust upon the American people. They were 
advanced because there was a bipartisan consensus that they were good 
for the future of the country. They came from the center, not the 
extremes.
  In the America of 1954, poverty and age were often indistinguishable, 
especially in parts of the South. The average monthly Social Security 
benefit was only $59. A child was three times less likely than today to 
survive its first year of life. The success of the Social Security 
Program has helped lower poverty rates among senior citizens to the 
lowest level in the population. The Medicare Program brought 32 million 
seniors into the health care system. The Women, Infants, and Children 
Program began to reduce infant mortality and aid to families with 
dependent children brought vulnerable children basic sustenance. 
Revelations of child hunger during the 1960's gave rise to the school 
lunch program. Later, deregulation of the airline, trucking, and 
telecommunications industries produced millions of new jobs and lowered 
prices for transportation and telephone services.
  The agricultural community is considerably better off today than when 
I came to the Senate in 1979. We have strived to craft farm policy 
which provides market stability and allows American farmers to 
aggressively pursue international markets. At the same time, these farm 
programs have dramatically reduced the cost to the U.S. Treasury.
  When I came to the Senate, one of my major goals was to help 
modernize and reform our Federal courts, much as we had done on the 
State level while I was on Alabama's Supreme Court. My efforts were 
focused on improving the Federal judicial system and relieving court 
congestion in criminal and civil cases. We were successful to a large 
degree, particularly in the areas of criminal justice and bankruptcy, 
although much could still be done.
  Today, our system of civil justice faces one of the greatest tests in 
its long history. The very foundation of our civil justice system and 
more than 500 years of the development of common law are under attack, 
including the right of trial by jury. We must continue to face these 
assaults by improving the administration of justice and maintaining its 
historic role in protecting the weak and disadvantaged.
  Of course, the programs mentioned above, as well as many others, are 
in need of reform. We all agree they should be streamlined and made 
more efficient. We should implement incentives for those on public 
assistance to work and become self-sufficient. The task of government, 
however, should just that--reform, streamlining, and improving 
efficiency. It should not be to tear down, eliminate, and dismantle 
just for the sake of reducing government.
  These government success stories and others are the result of 
compassionate, moderate, democratic government aimed at securing 
opportunity for and promoting responsibility among all Americans. No, 
these accomplishments did not result in the Great Society as envisioned 
by President Johnson and much-maligned in some political circles today. 
Some want to label all the Great Society programs as failures. It is 
fashionable to make them euphemisms for liberal big-spending 
government.
  Some of these programs were indeed disappointments worthy of the 
criticism they receive today. Certainly, there was some idealistic 
overreaching, which resulted in a pattern of dependency we are trying 
to combat through current welfare reform efforts. Even so, many good 
things came about, resulting in a better society, one that has come 
about due to more Americans than ever having basic opportunities to 
succeed and pursue their dreams. Instead of focusing on our failure to 
reach some sort of utopia, or unduly blaming each other for the 
overreaching that led to dependency among some segments of the 
population, we should take enormous pride in the fact that when it has 
been needed, our Government has usually done the right thing for our 
people.

  At the same time, we cannot rest on our laurels, but must learn from 
success--and from our failures--in order to reach even greater success 
and avoid the same shortfalls in the future. In this way, personal 
initiative can be enhanced where it is needed. In an era of shrinking 
government, programs designed to provide incentives for the private 
sector to search for solutions to public problems will become 
increasingly important.
  What can we do specifically to enhance the concept of moderation and 
promote its ability to yield the kinds of centrist government actions 
that help the vast majority of our citizens? How can the leaders of the 
next American century put aside personal ideology and work for policies 
and programs that promote opportunity and individual initiative, and 
that promote the public good? What can the new Congress do to change 
public perceptions about government?
  To begin with, bipartisanship should be one of the most used--if not 
the most used--guide for Congressmen and Senators when they initiate 
and pursue legislation. The lessons of the 1993 budget debate, health 
care reform in 1994, and most elements of the Contract With America in 
1995 and 1996 point to the obvious pitfalls of one party trying to 
govern by itself.
  To promote more bipartisanship, ways should be found to bring about 
more informal togetherness among Members of opposite parties. One of 
the wonderful byproducts of the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast 
gatherings has been the friendships forged across party and ideological 
lines. These friendships have led to more openness and willingness to 
discuss issues on a cordial basis. They promote the identification of 
common ground. This informal togetherness concept could be expanded to 
Senate standing committees like Agriculture, where I serve. Members 
could hold regularly scheduled luncheons and dinners among themselves 
and occasionally with their spouses.
  Another way to foster bipartisanship would be to have more committee 
hearings outside Washington in various regions of the country. These 
should be scheduled during recess periods, when Members are usually out 
of Washington anyway, or during extended weekends. Committee members 
traveling together get to know each other on a personal basis much 
better. Friendships and better understanding will no doubt be among the 
results.
  Issue discussions in informal settings should be frequent 
occurrences, particularly between the leadership of the respective 
parties and should, on occasioin, include White House leadership. 
Similar informal togetherness gatherings should occur among staff 
members. Such recommendations to enhance a spirit of bipartisanship and

[[Page S11245]]

to foster personal relations among Members of Congress might seem to be 
stating the obvious, even trivial in light of all the challenges we 
face. This spirit and these relationships have suffered greatly in 
recent years, however, and can only be restored through focusing on 
them. Congress, and especially the Senate, is only as strong and 
effective as the links between its Members. Newcomers to the 
institutuion will soon learn the importance--the necessity--of working 
together and compromising. The basic point is to soften the lines of 
partisanship and division that often impede the legislative process.
  Along with sincere efforts to increase bipartisanship, overall 
expectations must be lowered. There is a consensus in both parties and 
among the public at large that Government cannot be expected to do all 
things for all people. Constituents cannot continue to make 
contradictory calls for a downsizing of Government and a lowered 
deficit while at the same time demanding more services and benefits. 
Members must have the political courage to tell this truth and to point 
out this reality.
  The realities of our two-party system dictate that there will be 
issues upon which the parties will never agree. After all, the parties 
do hold competing views for the future of the country. This is not 
necessarily bad. It creates alternatives and requires leaders to 
articulate a vision. But, there are enough large issues that confront 
us that bipartisanship is the best way--perhaps the only way--to 
achieve success. By focusing on broad goals that come about through 
compromise, Members do not foresake their parties or philosophies.

  Where bipartisanship and working together are not possible, perhaps 
it is best to pull back and perhaps wait for another time to pursue 
action. This is in stark contrast to the tendency in recent Congresses 
to forge ahead, even where failure is certain, and then blame the other 
side or party for the failure. Sometimes legislation and ideas need to 
simmer and gel before being acted upon.
  There should be a ladies' and gentlemen's agreement making it a taboo 
to demonize your political opponents. Far too much of today's debate 
consists of trying to promote one's position through the character 
assassination of an opponent. Even in circumstances where this tactic 
succeeds, the victory is inherently hollow and will not stand the test 
of time. Both major parties could have their campaign committees 
designed to work together to create less negativity and friction in 
political campaigns. The first agreement should be to ban negative 
campaign ads.
  In the spirit of President Eisenhower, the status of his self-
proclaimed moderation should be returned to that of a political virtue 
rather than a governing liability. Regardless of the personal 
ideologies and views of individual Members of Congress, the national 
legislature should reflect the moderate course of a moderate populace. 
This does not mean that ideology and political passion do not or should 
not count; it does mean that sometimes they should be suppressed in the 
best interests of the Nation as a whole. In such a complex, diverse, 
and large country as ours, extreme, rigid views on either side can only 
perpetuate alienation from and dissatisfaction with Government.
  It has always struck me as rather interesting that the vast majority 
of the policy foundations, issue study centers, and think tanks are 
either identifiably conservative or liberal in their orientation. There 
are very few that are seen as centrist in their outlook. Perhaps 
private sources could establish an Institute for reason and moderation 
or a center for responsible government to review and monitor 
legislation under broad guidelines designed to produce a scholarly 
moderate approach to and evaluation of issues.
  As I leave the Senate and public service, I want to thank the people 
of my State for their faith and trust over the years. As I pass the 
torch to a new generation, I also want to thank my Creator for the 
blessing of health and energy during my lifetime so far, and for giving 
me the opportunity to serve our great Nation and my fellow citizens.
  As my time in the Senate draws to a close, I am reminded of the fact 
that our Nation--the United States of America--is not based on any one 
language, culture, or geographic area as are most older nations. 
Instead, it is based on a set of ideals, which, while relatively few in 
number, really encompass all the elements that constitute the core of 
who we are as a people. These are liberty, freedom, democracy, 
equality, opportunity, human dignity, and respect for others. These are 
the great ideals that brought us to these shores in the first place, 
and which will take us into the next century.
  Since our country is still so much a work in progress, I still 
believe that our best years are ahead. Sure, growing pains, in the 
nature of social problems, world threats, and ideological divides, will 
continue to occur. But by weathering these storms and finding remedies 
for them, we become stronger and better able to meet and adapt to 
changing demands and conditions. This adaptability and 
resourcefulness--benefits resulting from the genius of our Constitution 
and the Government it charters--have served us particularly well during 
the last several decades of intense social and technological change. 
This ability, with which America is uniquely equipped due to the ideals 
upon which it is founded and the Constitution which enshrines those 
ideals, can continue to guide and serve us well and will continue to be 
our greatest natural resource.

                          ____________________