S190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

even in a recession business gets a 4 to 

5 percent return on its investment. The 

real test should be, if the money is 

spent in the Government sector, will 

we get at least that return on the investment that we are making? If we do 

not, we should leave that money in the 

private sector so the private sector can 

get that return on that investment and 

therefore generate more economic activity in our private enterprise system. 

Another question is whether the new 

Government spending replaces State 

and local spending. My understanding 

is there is a big chunk of money to go 

to State and local governments. Now 

they have gotten themselves into a 

pickle because a lot of them have big 

budget deficits this year. They are 

going to constrict what they spend 

money on as well or they are going to 

have to raise taxes or fees or find some 

other way to balance their budgets. 

But they obviously would like for the 

Federal Government to bail them out. 

Well, obviously before the Federal Government considers doing that, the first 

question is, Are you going to correct 

what has created the deficiency in the 

first place or are we simply going to 

save your bacon then you do not have 

to do anything to change your ways. 

Are you going to reduce your spending? 

For example, are you going to spend 

the money anyway? 

People are talking about shovelready projects. There are a lot of shovel-ready projects at the State level for 

roads or highways or whatever, and 

they are called shovel-ready because 

the State is prepared to do them. Well, 

if the State is going to do them anyway, then clearly the Federal Government paying for it is not going to create any new jobs. It is not going to 

stimulate economic growth in any way, 

even though it might produce a new 

bridge or a new highway that is useful 

to the people in that State. So since 

our goal is to stimulate new economic 

activity, we must ask whether the 

spending will really create new economic activity or merely replace something at the State level that would 

occur anyway. 

The penultimate question is, Is it 

worth doing? We have to ask the taxpayers from whom we are getting 

money whether an investment is worth 

undertaking at all. For example, one of 

the things that would be on an infrastructure to-do list was a mob museum 

in Las Vegas; there was a snowmaking 

venture in Minnesota. Are these the 

kind of investments that American 

taxpayers believe are warranted under 

any circumstances? 

There are a lot of investments the 

Federal Government can make that are 

worthwhile. For example, clearly we 

have used a lot of military equipment 

that needs to be replaced. There are 

good jobs throughout this country producing military equipment. We need to 

add personnel to our military. I think 

there is a general consensus to do that. 

That will cost money. That will obviously create jobs. 

So those are activities that are needed, are worthwhile, are job creating, 

and clearly would help our country, potentially being much more worthwhile 

than, like I say, a mob museum or 

some kind of snowmaking equipment. 

Then, finally, I think there is one 

final test that we might talk about. In 

view of the huge deficit we have, 

should we make the deficit worse? This 

is a cost-benefit analysis. This is clearly going to be added to the deficit. So 

the question is, How much more deficit 

can we pile on without having adverse 

consequences in the immediate and 

long-term? We might stimulate the 

economy over the next 3 or 4 months, 

but if we are creating a huge hole to 

dig out of 3 or 4 years from now, we 

have to ask, Is it really going to be 

worth it. 

So when we evaluate the different 

proposals, we have to ask whether it is 

going to be worth it to have this large 

a deficit, twice the $1.2 trillion of this 

coming year. One thought in this regard is this: When we lower tax rates, 

we know it helps people. It helps small 

business create jobs. That is what you 

do in a recession. You try to help people by letting them keep more of their 

money so they can spend it and help 

get us out of the recession. 

Permanent tax cuts are the way to 

do that. The permanent tax cut obviously may or may not reduce revenue 

to the Treasury. The right kind of tax 

cuts can actually produce more revenue to the Treasury, but increased 

spending, there is no way around it, 

loses money to the Treasury. It puts 

you in a deeper hole. So as between the 

potential relief from taxes, leaving 

more money in the private sector, 

which is eventually going to create the 

jobs to get us out of the recession, or 

having the Government spend more 

money and creating a larger deficit 

that way, it is a test that I think we 

need to be very clear about, from my 

mind. 

While I am willing to help do things 

to stimulate economic activity in the 

short term, I am not willing to ignore 

long-term consequences of a deficit the 

size that would be created by the kind 

of spending we are talking about. 

If we apply the right kind of tests— 

and they are sensible. They are not Republican or Democratic tests; they are 

obviously tests that any prudent person would ask before spending this 

kind of money—I think that will help 

us better evaluate the kind of economic stimulus package we can actually support in the Senate. It will be 

the kind of analysis our taxpaying constituents expect of us when, in view of 

all of the other things that have been 

done to bail out various aspects of our 

economy, with the kind of trillion-dollar-plus deficit we are looking at, they 

want us to engage in, they want us to 

be prudent. 

They have had their fill of wasteful 

Washington spending. They want us to 

be very careful about what we do with 

their money in the future. I hope as we 

engage this debate in the future—we 

will have plenty of time to talk about 

it, debate it, think about it, to analyze 

it and I am not suggesting we try to 

slow-walk it, but in trying to move 

quickly we nevertheless take the time 

to perform the kind of analysis I have 

talked about. 

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous 

consent that the order for the quorum 

call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

GRIFFIN BELL 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I 

rise to pay tribute to a long-time, good 

friend and a great Georgian, Griffin 

Bell, who passed away on Monday of 

this week. Judge Griffin Bell was a native of America’s Georgia. He was a 

distinguished lawyer in our State since 

1947, when he passed the Georgia bar 

after completing just four quarters of 

study in his beloved Mercer Law 

School in Macon, GA. Upon graduation 

the following year, he entered private 

practice in Savannah. Appointed by 

President John Kennedy to the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney 

General of the United States under 

President Jimmy Carter, and as an attorney for President George H.W. Bush, 

Judge Bell has left an extraordinary 

legacy of courage, integrity, wisdom, 

and, yes, humor to our Nation and to 

my State. 

In one of the press reports this week, 

upon Judge Bell’s death at the age of 

90, one of his law partners, Richard 

Schneider at the distinguished Atlanta 

firm of King & Spalding, where Judge 

Bell practiced before and after his service on the Federal bench and as Attorney General, said: 

No novelist, not even Dickens or John Irving, could have created a more memorable 

character than Judge Bell. He took the role 

of being a lawyer and transformed it into a 

legend. It is remarkable that every man and 

woman who spent even a brief period with 

Judge Bell would cling to him and claim him 

as their hero forever. That is how legends are 

made and legends last forever. That will be 

the case with the great Griffin Bell. 

I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Newnan Times-Herald, 

in which the Schneider comments appear, be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[From the Newnan Times-Herald] 

HEAVEN IS GREATER WITH THE ARRIVAL OF

GRIFFIN BELL

Georgia is saying goodbye to one of our 

state’s most distinguished citizens. Griffin B. 

Bell, lawyer, judge, U.S. attorney general 

and confidante to presidents, governors and 

many others, died Monday. A public graveside service will be 11 a.m. today in Americus, where he was born. A public memorial 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S191 

service will be 11 a.m. Friday at Second 

Ponce de Leon Baptist Church in Atlanta. 

When we think of Griffin Bell, some of the 

words that come to mind are distinguished, 

integrity, professionalism, charm, statesman, enduring. In reading some of the news 

accounts reacting to his death, we heard 

words that help define this Georgia giant. 

Said his grandson Griffin Bell III: ‘‘He was 

ready to go. We are just blessed to have him 

so long. He’s a great man, a great grandfather. We’re going to miss him—everything 

was checked off his list. . . . He was still 

running the show until very recently . . . If 

he had another six months, he’d still knock 

off four or five major projects.’’ 

Arlington Christian School 

Said law partner Bob Steed: ‘‘If he took a 

position, he’d take it strongly and defend it. 

But if someone improved it, he was willing 

to give way. His ego didn’t get involved with 

his choices. . . . He was sharp to the very 

end. He told his son that there must be a 

committee in heaven in charge of dying, because it was taking so long.’’ 

Former Mercer University Chancellor R. 

Kirby Godsey said, ‘‘Griffin Bell was more 

than an outstanding statesman or a great 

American; he stood as a first citizen of the 

world whose voice and insights will shape 

human history for decades to come.’’ 

‘‘No novelist—not even Dickens or John Irving—could have created a more memorable 

character than Judge Bell,’’ said law partner 

Richard N. Schneider. He took the role of 

being a lawyer and transformed it into legend. . . . It is remarkable that every man 

and woman who spent even a brief period 

with Judge Bell would cling to him and 

claim him as their hero forever. That’s how 

legends are made, and legends last forever— 

and that will be the case with the great Griffin Bell.’’ 

And finally, from former prosecutor and 

now CNN personality Nancy Grace: 

‘‘I have known many, many judges during 

my legal career. Judge Bell, without a doubt, 

was the most honorable of them all . . . He 

will be missed sorely, but, as of this moment, 

heaven has become even greater.’’ 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. In two short weeks 

President-elect Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the 

United States. I am proud of this moment for him and for our Nation. The 

new President will have my prayers 

and support. I believe it is appropriate 

to link in some small way the President-elect’s great and historic victory 

to the courage and integrity of Judge 

Bell. In the 1950s and 1960s across the 

South and across our Nation as a 

whole, the country worked to implement the landmark case of Brown v. 

Board of Education. While serving as 

chief of staff to Georgia Governor Ernest Vandiver, Judge Bell provided 

counsel to the Sibley Commission. This 

blue-ribbon panel held hearings 

throughout Georgia for the purpose of 

educating citizens on the inevitability 

of public school desegregation. In my 

view, his efforts on this commission 

were an important step down the path 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others 

traveled that enabled Atlanta to become the city and community that it is 

today, for Georgia to truly become the 

empire State of the South, and for our 

Nation to elect our new President. 

After cochairing President Kennedy’s 

successful Georgia campaign during his 

1960 Presidential election, the President nominated Judge Bell to a position on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. To quote from his excellent biography provided by King & Spalding: 

Judge Bell was unquestionably one of the 

court’s strongest civil rights enforcers. He 

fervently believed in the rule of law and had 

little patience for segregationist-minded 

government officials seeking to evade or 

defy court orders to deny African Americans 

their civil rights. In United States v Barnett 

. . . Judge Bell voted with the majority of 

the court in ordering the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith as a student and enjoined the governor from interfering with his admission. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

firm’s biography of Judge Bell be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

BELL, GRIFFIN (1918—) 

The shadow of Griffin Bell looms large 

across the landscape of jurisprudence in the 

United States. Over the course of his distinguished fifty-five-year legal career, Bell has 

compiled an impressive list of achievements, 

serving as the managing partner of Atlanta’s 

premier law firm, the chief of staff to the 

governor of Georgia, the U.S. attorney general, legal adviser to three U.S. presidents, 

the ‘‘lawyer of last resort for some of the nation’s largest corporations,’’ and, for over 

fourteen years, an influential federal appellate judge. 

Griffin Boyette Bell was born on 31 October 

1918 in Americus, Georgia, to Adlai Cleveland 

Bell, a cotton farmer, and Thelma Leola 

Pilcher Bell. A. C. Bell laid the foundation 

for his son’s future career in law and politics 

at an early age, taking the youngster to numerous campaign rallies and trials at the 

local courthouse. Fortunately, the boy’s intellect was more than sufficient to meet his 

father’s ambitions for him. He was extremely 

intelligent, graduating from Americus High 

School at the age of fifteen. Bell then attended Georgia Southwestern College and 

worked as a Firestone salesman before being 

drafted by the army in 1941. After completing Officer Candidate School, he served 

as a company commander for more than 500 

soldiers during World War II, eventually attaining the rank of major. Bell credits his 

time in the army as the most valuable management experience he could have received 

for a career in the law. It was also during 

this time period that he met his bride-to-be, 

Mary Powell. The Bells were married for almost sixty years before Mary’s passing in 

the fall of 2000. Their marriage produced one 

son, Griffin Jr., and two grandchildren, Griffin III and Katherine. Judge Bell is now married to Nancy Kinnebrew Bell. 

In 1946, after receiving an honorable discharge, Griffin Bell took advantage of the 

G.I. Bill by enrolling at Mercer University’s 

law school in Macon, Georgia. In addition to 

his legal studies, Bell clerked for the law 

firm of Anderson, Anderson and Walker and 

served as the first city attorney of Warner 

Robbins, Georgia. In 1947, after just four 

quarters of study, he passed the Georgia bar 

on his first attempt. One year later, he graduated from Mercer with honors. Since that 

time, Bell has received the Order of the Coif 

from Vanderbilt University’s law school and 

honorary degrees from several other colleges 

and universities. 

Griffin Bell began his legal career with 

Lawton and Cunningham, a historic Savannah law firm that once ‘‘sued the federal 

government to recover the value of the cotton that Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman 

had burned on his ‘march to the sea’’’ (Murphy 1999, 29). In 1952, he left Savannah to become a named partner of Matthews, Owens 

and Maddox, a law firm located in Rome, 

Georgia. But he only stayed in Rome for a 

‘‘spell,’’ leaving just one year later to join 

the prestigious Atlanta law firm of King and 

Spalding (formerly known as Spalding, Sibley, Troutman and Kelly). Upon arriving at 

King and Spalding, he immediately ‘‘began 

to lead the firm toward a more involved role 

in government affairs’’ (Murphy 1999, 40). In 

1958, after just five years, he became the 

firm’s managing partner and one year later 

was named chief of staff to S. Ernest 

Vandiver, the newly elected governor of 

Georgia. As chief of staff, Bell was the architect of the Sibley Commission, a blue ribbon 

panel designed to conduct hearings throughout the state ‘‘for the purpose of educating 

segregationists on the inevitability of public 

school desegregation’’ (Patterson 1977). The 

commission is universally credited with 

being the vehicle that saved Georgia’s public 

school system. 

In 1960, Bell was asked to cochair Sen. 

John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 

Georgia. He agreed to do so ‘‘before it was by 

any means certain a Catholic and a ‘liberal’ 

on civil rights could carry that state’’ (Patterson 1977). In one of their first meetings, 

Kennedy asked Bell whether he would be embarrassed to campaign on behalf of a Catholic. Bell replied, ‘‘Not at all. But I am embarrassed for our country that you would think 

to ask me that question’’ (Murphy 1999, 71). 

In the end, Kennedy won the election and 

carried Georgia by a larger margin than in 

any other state. Afterward, Robert Kennedy, 

the president’s brother and new U.S. attorney general, contacted Bell to inquire as to 

whether he was interested in a position or 

appointment with the federal government. 

Bell told him it was his understanding that 

two judgeships might open up on the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 

at that time the nation’s largest federal appellate court, and that he would certainly be 

interested in being considered for one of 

them. President Kennedy gladly obliged, 

nominating the forty-two-year-old Bell for a 

judgeship on the Fifth Circuit on 6 October 

1961. But instead of waiting for the Senate to 

confirm the nomination, Kennedy decided to 

make Bell a recess appointment because of 

‘‘the circuit’s mounting caseload problems’’ 

(Barrow and Walker 1998, 29). The U.S. Senate confirmed Bell’s nomination by an overwhelming margin the following spring. 

Griffin Bell brought a forceful personality 

to the Fifth Circuit. A cross between Mark 

Twain and John Marshall, Bell was plain 

spoken, witty, charming, politically savvy, 

and extremely intelligent. He joined the 

court during one of the most turbulent times 

in our nation’s history. The country was in 

the midst of a social revolution, and the 

Fifth Circuit—with jurisdiction over the 

Deep South states of Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas— 

was the primary battleground in the struggle 

for civil rights. As tensions rose to a boiling 

point, the Fifth Circuit was called upon to 

dispense justice and maintain societal order. 

Never one to sit on the sidelines, Bell wasted 

little time entering into the fray and quickly 

became one of the court’s most respected and 

influential jurists. As a judge, he unequivocally enforced the civil rights of black Americans, served as a bridge between the activist 

judges of the court and states’ rights advocates, masterfully accommodated the competing interests of warring civil rights litigants to achieve commonsense solutions in 

the most complex of cases, and was a leader 

in the fight to preserve neighborhood schools 

on a nonracial basis. 

Judge Bell was unquestionably one of the 

court’s strongest civil rights enforcers. He 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

fervently believed in the rule of law and had 

little patience for segregationist-minded 

government officials seeking to evade or 

defy court orders or deny blacks their civil 

rights. In United States v. Barnett (1963– 

1965), Bell voted with the majority of the 

court in ordering the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith as a student, enjoining the governor of the state 

from interfering with his admission, and 

holding the governor in civil contempt for 

attempting to do so. In Evers v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District (1964), he reversed a district court’s dismissal of complaints seeking desegregation of the public 

school systems of Jackson, Biloxi, and Leake 

County, Mississippi, eloquently noting that 

schools are not truly desegregated until ‘‘inhibitions, legal and otherwise, serving to enforce segregation have been removed . . . 

[and black children] are ‘afforded a reasonable and conscious opportunity to apply for 

admission to any schools for which they are 

eligible without regard to their race or color, 

and to have that choice fairly considered by 

the enrolling authorities.’’’ In United States 

v. Lynd (1965), he authored an opinion holding a state court clerk in civil contempt for 

willfully disregarding a court order allowing 

blacks to register to vote. In Turner v. 

Goolsby (1965–1966), Bell crafted an innovative desegregation order placing the school 

system of Taliaferro County, Georgia, into a 

receivership after local officials closed down 

the county’s only white school and secretly 

arranged for those children to attend schools 

in adjoining counties. 

One of Judge Bell’s most important enforcement decisions was United States v. 

Hinds County School Board (1969), a case involving the development and implementation of desegregation plans in thirty-three 

Mississippi school districts. This case came 

about after the Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded a Fifth Circuit order giving the 

state additional time to desegregate, holding 

‘‘the continued operation of segregated 

schools under a standard of allowing ‘all deliberate speed’ for desegregation is no longer 

constitutionally permissible’’ (Alexander v. 

Holmes County Bd. of Educ. 1969). In an extraordinary move, the Court ordered the 

Fifth Circuit immediately to fashion and implement desegregation plans for each school 

district, even though the school year was already well under way. Chief Judge John R. 

Brown wasted little time in assigning Bell 

the difficult task of handling the case. 

Brown’s reasons for doing so were obvious to 

the other members of the court. By that 

time, Bell had proven himself to be a brilliant tactician and a deft negotiator. As the 

‘‘man in the middle,’’ he was adroit ‘‘in the 

use of compromise’’ and ‘‘had the ability to 

bring together opposing sides, to find a common ground, and reconcile differences’’ (Barrow and Walker 1998, 28). A judge who frequently hunted with Bell claimed that he 

was so persuasive ‘‘[he could] talk the birds 

out of the trees to sit on his shoulder’’ (28). 

His colleagues had no doubt that he could 

handle this complex and unwieldy case. Bell 

did not disappoint. He began by summoning 

all of the school superintendents to New Orleans for a meeting. According to one witness, ‘‘He read the riot act to them—He told 

them they were desegregating next month 

whether they liked it or not’’ (Strasser 1977). 

After flashing the ‘‘big stick,’’ Bell turned on 

his trademark charm. He spent several 

weeks conferring with civil rights lawyers, 

school board attorneys, and local officials 

about the details of the respective desegregation plans and the manner in which they 

would be implemented. This innovative approach ‘‘drew praise from all sides’’ and 

helped safeguard ‘‘the public’s perception of 

judicial even-handedness’’ (Bass 1998a, 1505). 

More important, the Hinds decision marked 

a turning point for the Fifth Circuit’s desegregation jurisprudence. In the past, if a circuit panel found fault with a district court’s 

desegregation order, it would simply reverse 

and remand the case with instructions to develop a new plan. In the meantime, schools 

would remain segregated. After Hinds, however, the status quo during desegregation 

litigation was a desegregated school system. 

Judge Bell was the Fifth Circuit’s leading 

critic of using busing as a means of disestablishing the ‘‘separate but equal’’ school systems of the past. Although Bell strongly believed in both the legal and moral correctness of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 

that black children have a fundamental constitutional right to attend school with white 

children and receive the same quality of education, he did not favor integration—that is, 

busing children several hours across town to 

achieve ‘‘a racial ratio [in each school] that 

reflected the total school population in the 

geographic entity’’ (Murphy 1999, 129). In his 

opinion, busing had nothing to do with equal 

protection and everything to do with social 

engineering. Bell interpreted Brown as giving black students ‘‘freedom of choice to go 

to schools, primarily in their own neighborhoods’’ (129). In this respect, he favored a 

strict neighborhood-school policy, with a 

majority-to-minority transfer policy that allowed students to transfer to a school outside of their neighborhood so long as the 

transfer did not have the effect of increasing 

the majority of the students’ race at that 

school. If segregated schools still existed 

after the implementation of this policy, Bell 

advocated pairing nearby schools together as 

a means of further ‘‘disestablishing the dual 

school system’’ (101). Although Bell’s argument did not, initially, carry the day, his 

valiant fight to preserve neighborhood 

schools remains praiseworthy. Many historians lavish praise on the activist members 

of the Fifth Circuit for requiring busing, but 

the real-world consequences of their actions 

have been devastating for public schools. 

Bell believes that the decline of public education in the United States is inextricably 

linked to the judiciary’s decision to impose 

‘‘forced integration and mandatory busing’’ 

on the schools: ‘‘Anybody with one eye and 

half sense should have known that busing 

would ruin them. The neighborhood 

strengths were lost’’ (132). 

In addition to his formal participation on 

the bench, Bell also distinguished himself as 

an expert in the area of judicial administration, establishing ‘‘many of the Fifth Circuit’s innovative screening and expediting 

processes’’ (U.S. Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary 1977, 6). He held several leadership 

roles in this area, serving as the chairman of 

the Federal Judicial Center’s Committee on 

Innovation and Development (1968–1970), as a 

director of the Federal Judicial Center (1973), 

and as chairman of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration (1976). He also took time 

from his judicial duties to serve as chairman 

of the Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency (1965–1966). 

During his fourteen-plus years on the Fifth 

Circuit, Judge Bell participated in over 3,000 

cases and authored more than 1,000 opinions. 

His reputation as jurist was such that four 

separate presidents (Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, 

and Reagan) had Bell on their short list of 

potential Supreme Court nominees. But as 

the fall of 1975 approached, Bell was restless. 

The intellectually challenging civil rights 

cases had come and gone, and he now spent 

the majority of his time dealing with ‘‘a 

heavy load of criminal and habeas corpus 

matters,’’ work that he considered boring 

and dreary (Field Van Tassel 1993, 354). 

Around that same time, lawyers from King 

and Spalding paid him a visit and asked him 

whether he would consider leaving the bench 

and rejoining the firm. The offer was tempting. Bell loved practicing law, and he missed 

working with clients. After a few months, he 

informed his fellow judges that he had decided to resign. They were taken aback by 

his announcement. It was highly unusual for 

a federal appellate judge to relinquish a lifetime appointment, and Bell was, at that 

time, only the fourth judge to ever resign 

from the Fifth Circuit. Although his colleagues were disappointed by the decision, 

they were nothing but complimentary of his 

service to the court. Judge Bryan Simpson 

summed up their collective sentiment nicely, noting that Bell ‘‘was a tower of strength, 

and I think his strength has been that he’s 

been a balance wheel. He always took the 

center ground, and he can draw people from 

either side when we get in these real tough 

fights’’ (Murphy 1999, 140). 

When Griffin Bell decided to step down 

from the bench, he thought his career as fulltime public servant was over. But eleven 

short months later, everything changed. A 

childhood acquaintance, Jimmy Earl Carter, 

had been elected the thirty-ninth president 

of the United States and selected Bell to be 

his U.S. attorney general. Although he had 

no desire to return to government service, 

Bell’s patriotism was such that he could not 

refuse a president’s request to serve his 

country. His selection, however, created a 

firestorm of controversy, and several members from Bell’s own party led the charge to 

derail his nomination. After being subjected 

to one of the most contentious Senate confirmation fights in modern history, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted ten to three, 

with one senator voting present, to recommend his confirmation to the full Senate. 

On 25 January 1977, the U.S. Senate voted 

seventy-five to twenty-one to confirm him. 

Later that day, Chief Justice Warren E. 

Burger swore in Bell as the nation’s seventysecond U.S. attorney general. 

Griffin Bell has been called one of the 

greatest attorney generals of the twentieth 

century. Under his leadership, the Department of Justice had an active legislative 

agenda on issues such as judicial administration, criminal justice reform, and intelligence reform. Bell also helped reshape the 

federal judiciary by overseeing the selection 

of 152 new judges and in the process appointed more blacks, women, and Hispanics 

to the bench than any other administration 

had up to that point. His primary achievement, however, was ‘‘rebuilding the Justice 

Department as a neutral zone in government 

[and] . . . restoring the integrity of the FBI 

and our foreign intelligence agencies in the 

wake of Watergate’’ (Barry 2000). At the time 

of Bell’s resignation, in August 1979, Chief 

Justice Burger remarked that ‘‘[n]o finer 

man has ever occupied the great office of attorney general of the United States or 

discharge[d] his duties with greater distinction’’ (Murphy 1999, 302). 

In the years following his return to King 

and Spalding, Griffin Bell has established 

himself as one of the country’s premier lawyers and most prolific rainmakers, bringing 

numerous and profitable clients to the firm. 

Although he handles a variety of complex 

legal matters, he is nationally recognized for 

his expertise in conducting internal investigations of high-profile corporate crime (for 

example, E. F. Hutton check-kiting scandal; 

Exxon Valdez oil spill; Dow Corning breast 

implant controversy). He has also received a 

great deal of media attention for his pro 

bono representation of Eugene Hasenfus, an 

American mercenary shot down in Nicaragua 

while delivering arms to the Contras; serving 

as Pres. George H. W. Bush’s private attorney during the Iran-Contra investigation; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S193 

and guiding the Atlanta Committee for the 

Olympic Games through a congressional investigation into actions taken by committee 

members during the bidding process. 

In addition to his private practice, Judge 

Bell has continued to serve his country in a 

variety of leadership roles. In 1980, he led the 

U.S. delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. He has also 

served as cochairman of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Violent Crime 

(1981); a member of the Secretary of State’s 

Advisory Committee on South Africa (1985 to 

1987); a director, and then chairman, of the 

Ethics Resource Center (1986 to 1991); a member of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for the Commemoration of the United 

States Constitution (1986–1989); vice chairman of President Bush’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform (1989); a member of 

the Webster Commission, which, in March 

2002, issued its report on Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) security programs and 

Russian spy Robert Hanssen; and a member 

of the ad hoc advisory committee established 

by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for 

the purpose of developing rules to govern 

military tribunals (2002). During the Clinton 

impeachment process, he was one of nineteen 

legal scholars asked to testify before the 

House Judiciary Committee on the historical 

origins of impeachment. In 1984, Bell received the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Award for excellence in law, and he 

was recently named one of the 100 Georgians 

of the century. 

Judge Bell’s political clout remains considerable. In recent years, this onetime Democrat has taken to endorsing Republican presidential candidates. He lent his support to 

Vice Pres. George H. W. Bush in 1992, Sen. 

Robert Dole in 1996, and Gov. George W. Bush 

in 2000. During the presidential election controversy of 2000, Bell visited the recount site 

and served as one of the Bush team’s key advisers. He also filed an amicus brief on behalf 

of the American Center for Law and Justice 

in Bush v. Gore (2000). After the election, 

Bell served as a member of president-elect 

Bush’s transition advisory team for the Department of Justice. Although these actions 

have no doubt raised eyebrows in the Democratic Party, Bell insists that he is not a Republican: ‘‘I haven’t switched parties, I consider myself to be an independent’’ (‘‘Griffin 

Bell, Carter’s Attorney General’’ 1996). 

Griffin Bell’s life is an American success 

story. Born into humble circumstances, he 

reached the heights of his profession through 

a combination of talent, ambition, and an indefatigable work ethic. More important, 

when positions of power provided him with 

an opportunity to make a difference, he consistently rose to the occasion. As a judge, his 

‘‘intelligence and even-handedness in administering justice guided the South and the nation through some of its most perilous 

times’’ (Barry 2000). With all of his achievements, this is Bell’s greatest legacy: his 

commitment to the rule of law and the equal 

rights of all citizens. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. There were many 

more important decisions in which he 

was involved, and I was privileged to 

study and learn from them while attending law school at the University of 

Tennessee. 

Judge Bell was nominated by President Carter and confirmed by the Senate on January 25, 1977, as the Nation’s 

72nd Attorney General. His force of 

character and common sense revived a 

Justice Department that suffered from 

the Watergate era. According to Terry 

Adamson, a law clerk for the judge 

when he was on the Fifth Circuit, a 

principal assistant for Judge Bell at 

the Justice Department and a longtime friend of his, he said in an article 

that also appeared this week in the Atlanta Journal Constitution: 

Bell recently told NPR reporter Nina 

Totenberg that his effort to bring about 

transparency during his service at the department was the core of restoring public 

confidence. 

Certainly, it was. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Adamson’s article be 

printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

[Jan. 7, 2009] 

HARDWORKING BELL LEAVES A LEGACY TO BE

APPRECIATED

(By Terry Adamson) 

Judge Griffin Bell and I were breakfasting 

in the White House mess in 1991 with my 

wife, who was then on President George H.W. 

Bush’s senior staff. The president heard Bell 

was there and sent a message to visit in the 

Oval Office. It was a visit among friends, and 

Bush and his wife, Barbara, at Bell’s invitation, were soon at Sea Island where they had 

not visited since their honeymoon. Rounds of 

golf were played, a return engagement for 

Bell followed at Camp David that included 

golf with Bush and Arnold Palmer, and Bush 

soon had Bell as his personal lawyer. For 

Griffin Bell, who died Monday at age 90, that 

was normal. 

During his terminal illness, Bell’s doctors 

told him to establish a goal each day. He accomplished many during the last six months, 

invigorated by the outpouring of visits and 

calls of his lifetime of friends, and at peace 

after a satisfying and long life. His mind 

stayed clear and vigorous to the end. Former 

Atlanta Constitution editor Eugene Patterson was one of those who told Bell in a call 

a few weeks ago how ‘‘the courage’’ displayed by Bell and Gov. Ernest Vandiver to 

bring Georgia within the legal requirements 

of integration and save public education in 

Georgia ‘‘set my own bearing.’’ 

Bell was a new 43-year-old judge for just a 

few months on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals when he drew the case that ended the 

discriminatory county unit system and 

changed Georgia elections. He was soon embroiled in Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett’s defiance of court orders to admit James Meredith to the University of Mississippi. The 

Georgia and Mississippi cases were two 

among about 3,000 cases in which he participated and more than 500 opinions that he 

wrote. These cases reflected his frequent and 

significant role during his nearly 15 years as 

a judge in which he synthesized the court’s 

center, advancing civil rights. President 

John F. Kennedy went on television in the 

midst of the Barnett controversy to cite Bell 

and other southern judges as courageous heroes. 

In 1977, Bell and President Jimmy Carter 

had a mission to refurbish the Justice Department and FBI after the severe tarnish of 

Watergate. He started and ended by boosting 

the professionalism of the careerists in the 

department. When he left, the esprit of the 

body of the men and women at Justice was 

at an all-time high. 

As a critical ingredient of this mission, 

Bell earned the respect of a cynical post-Watergate press corps. Seemingly small things 

were part of his plan, such as posting on the 

press room bulletin board his own daily logs 

showing his every meeting and telephone 

call with anyone outside the Justice Department from the day before. He enforced rules 

such as restricting White House contacts to 

only the highest levels of the department to 

minimize even the appearance of political 

pressures on lesser officials. Bell recently 

told NPR reporter Nina Totenberg that this 

transparency was the core of restoring public 

confidence. 

While rigorous about his national security 

responsibilities and proud of the first modern 

successful prosecutions of spies, Bell also 

persuaded the intelligence community and 

the Congress to trust the judiciary to oversee domestic surveillance by authoring and 

passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He recruited and persuaded William Webster to resign a lifetime appellate 

judgeship to become head of the FBI. 

Bell implemented Carter’s campaign 

pledge to give meaningful roles to minorities 

and women. African-Americans as solicitor 

general and the head of the civil rights division were among his first two recruits. At 

the beginning of the Carter presidency, there 

were few minorities and no women judges on 

the federal appeals courts, and few on the 

trial courts. It was one of the highest priorities of Carter and Bell, and for the first time 

in history, significant percentages of women 

and minorities became federal trial and appellate judges. 

As I watched Bell operate over the years, I 

was amazed not only with the depth of his 

mind, but his laudable ability to absorb and 

process the energy and knowledge of the law 

clerks, aides, or fellow lawyers around him 

in order to improve his own. The daily 

breakfast with other Justice officials in the 

Martha Mitchell dining room was nothing 

but fodder for his intellect. 

Initially labeled by some critics as a 

‘‘crony’’ of Carter, 21 senators voted against 

Bell’s confirmation as attorney general. All 

of these opponents later publicly voiced 

their support for him. Bob Dole wrote in the 

Washington Post that his vote against Bell 

was one of his two worst votes in Congress. 

The leader of that initial opposition, Sen. 

Charles McMathias, a liberal Republican 

from Maryland, also recanted ‘‘the error of 

his opposition’’ as he hosted Bell at his 

Maryland farm before they together commemorated John Marshall, the first chief 

justice, at a nearby rural burial site. 

Bell was a people’s person of the first 

order, who valued his own common origins. 

Secretaries around the Justice Department 

would be surprised when this attorney general would wander into their far-flung offices, alone and unannounced. It took no 

more than five minutes before Bell had established a common acquaintance. On the 

day a massive snowstorm engulfed and 

closed Washington, the Washington Post 

called the offices of the Cabinet to see who 

was working. He and I were the only ones 

there that morning, and I was off making 

coffee, when the phone rang. He answered in 

his recognizable and unassuming drawl. That 

was the lead of the Washington Post story 

about who was working in Washington. 

Bell’s most mentioned trait was his rich 

humor and wit. Former Atlanta Constitution 

editor Reg Murphy wrote an engaging biography laden with samplings of this wit: ‘‘Uncommon Sense: The Achievement of Griffin 

Bell.’’ Bell introduced a widely rumored aphrodisiac, rooster pepper sausage, to Washington, headlined in a front-page story by reporter Phil Gailey, ‘‘Rooster Pepper has 

White House Links.’’ 

Bell gave a still remembered acceptance 

speech in 1979 as ‘‘a candidate for President 

of the United States’’ at the Alfalfa Club, an 

annual banquet and mock political event in 

Washington usually attended by the current 

president, the Cabinet, military, judicial, political and business leaders. He began in his 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

distinctive Georgia drawl, ‘‘I would like to 

advise that arrangements have been made 

for simultaneous translation.’’ 

He continued (paraphrasing Churchill’s 

great statement), ‘‘Our motto will be to 

wage obfuscation. We will wage obfuscation 

on the beaches and on the landing fields and 

in the political arena of America. And when 

all else fails and we can no longer obfuscate, 

we will tell the truth to the extent we know 

it.’’ 

We celebrate with deep affection the life of 

this rare man. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. When leaving the 

Fifth Circuit, Judge Bell returned to 

King and Spalding and distinguished 

himself as one of the country’s premier 

lawyers. 

In closing, as I have paid tribute to 

his distinguished career, I wish to take 

a moment to pay tribute to this wonderful gentleman and friend. As a lawyer, I learned so much from him about 

the practice of law. As a Congressman 

and Senator, I learned so much about 

politics and public service. 

As a friend, I enjoyed our visits and 

conversations. His keen sense of humor 

has been compared to Mark Twain. As 

my good friend, Bob Steed—Georgia’s 

very own ‘‘Mark Twain’’; a real humorist, columnist, and long-time law partner of Judge Bell—said this week of his 

wisdom and wit: 

If he took a position, he’d take it strongly 

and defend it. But if someone improved it, he 

was willing to give way. His ego didn’t get 

involved with choices . . . He was sharp to 

the very end. He told his son that there must 

be a committee in heaven in charge of dying, 

because it was taking so long. 

That was Judge Bell. 

Griffin Bell changed the course of the 

history of our country. As a judge on 

the Fifth Circuit, his decisions regarding integration of school systems in 

Georgia and across the South were a 

model for integration throughout the 

Nation. In his role as Attorney General, he did much to restore the 

public’s trust in the Department of 

Justice. He was a close personal friend 

of mine, and this is not only a national 

loss but a personal one as well. 

Mr. President, I have before me a 

commencement speech that he gave at 

Mercer University Law School in 2002. 

I ask unanimous consent that it be 

printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

Dr. Godsey, Congressman Chambliss, members of the faculty, families of graduates, 

graduates and friends: 

I congratulate each one of you graduates 

on having completed law school. Through 

much study and great effort, you are about 

to become lawyers. You are about to become 

members of a privileged class of Americans 

because as lawyers, you are agreeing to serve 

your fellow Americans in resolving those 

kinds of disputes which arise in a free country. 

We have many rights and many responsibilities, and lawyers are necessary to resolve the conflicts which arise from time to 

time with respect to those rights and responsibilities. 

In 1835, a young Frenchman by the name of 

Alexis de Tocqueville came to this country 

to study our prison system. He stayed for 

two years and ended up writing Democracy 

in America, an epic study of our democratic 

system. He reached many conclusions, and 

two apply to you. 

First, he said that almost every problem 

that arises in a democracy will eventually be 

resolved in the court system. This was true 

then and it is true now. 

Second, he said that there was no aristocracy in America, but that the nearest approach to aristocracy was in the lawyer 

class. His thought was that lawyers occupy 

an unusual and favored position in our system. 

So now that you are about to become aristocrats, I want to give you a short lecture on 

behavior. We have an ample supply of lawyers in our country, and some of the lawyers 

overlook the obligation to serve others. They 

also distort the privilege of practicing law by 

converting it into a mere occupation. I was 

taught in law school that a lawyer had ethical obligations well above the morals of the 

marketplace. 

We are privileged to represent others in resolving their problems, but we have to do so 

with the public interest in mind. We can advise and counsel and defend clients, but we 

cannot advise or facilitate activities which 

violate the law. We live in a very complex 

world where the channels of commerce depend on tax laws, which are often 

unfathomable. There is a fine line between 

tax avoiders and tax evaders. Accounting 

standards can be evaded with the result that 

the public loses confidence in our business 

corporations and in the integrity of the marketplace. Lawyers are the watchmen on the 

wall in the sense that they should say no to 

clients who engage in such activities. 

One of the first duties of a lawyer is to remain detached in any representation to the 

end that you do not facilitate the breaking 

of the law. Always err on the side of doing 

right. You and only you are responsible for 

your ethics. 

You should attach yourself to a mentor at 

the earliest possible time. Those of you who 

will be trial lawyers—and that will probably 

be about half of you—will not have the privilege of being trained as barristers, as would 

be the case in England, where you would 

have your training at an Inn of Court. Inns 

of Court do not teach law, but they teach 

lawyers how to conduct themselves and how 

to behave themselves. Once they are certified by their mentors, as knowing how to 

conduct themselves, they become barristers. 

If you attach yourself to a mentor who has 

integrity—and I can assure you that the 

older lawyers are always glad to help young 

lawyers—you will absorb those qualities of 

conduct that will make you into respected 

lawyers. 

The rules of conduct that you should follow in your practice can be simply stated. 

1. To a client a lawyer owes undivided allegiance and the utmost application of your 

learning, skill and industry as well as the 

employment of all appropriate legal means 

within the law to protect and enforce the interests of the clients. You should not be deterred by any fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity. Nor should you be influenced by self interest. 

2. To opposing counsel a lawyer owes a 

duty of courtesy, candor in the pursuit of 

truth and cooperation in all respects—not inconsistent with the clients’ interests. You 

also must scrupulously observe all mutual 

understandings. Your word is your bond. 

3. To the courts you owe respect, diligence, 

candor and punctuality. You should also 

work to ensure the independence of the judiciary and protect the courts against unjust 

and improper criticism. In return, you 

should expect from the judge and the courts 

that you be treated with respect and that 

your dignity and independence as an officer 

of the court be maintained. I have always 

thought it a mark of great distinction that a 

lawyer in court can make a statement, as 

they say, ‘‘in his or her place’’ to the court, 

without the necessity of being put under 

oath. This is a mark of our professionalism. 

4. In the administration of justice, you 

must abide by the rules and conform to the 

highest principles of professional rectitude, 

irrespective of the desires of the clients or 

others. 

5. To the public you owe the duty of making certain that the system for administering justice is fair and efficient, and you 

should do what you can to improve the system. 

6. To the public you also owe the duty of 

seeing to it that counsel is made available to 

those who cannot afford counsel either on a 

pro bono basis or for such fees as can be afforded. 

7. Finally, to our country you owe the duty 

of leadership. You are in the class ‘‘to whom 

much is given, much is expected.’’ 

You should arrange your affairs as lawyers 

so as to have time to be thorough and diligent. The bane of many lawyers may be having too much practice. You do not serve any 

client well when you lack the time to be 

thorough and prompt. You are not required 

to take every matter that is presented to 

you, but having assumed a representation, it 

becomes your duty to finish the representation. Sometimes you will make a bad bargain, but as professionals, you are still obligated to carry out the representation. 

Someone asked one of my friends when we 

were in law school why so many of us veterans were going to law school just after 

World War II. My friend replied that we were 

hoping to gain a part of the American dream. 

In most instances, my generation has found 

the American dream. We have had good, rewarding lives and we have taken great pride 

in our profession. 

I am proud to be a lawyer. I am proud of 

the fact that my son is a lawyer, and I am 

proud of the fact that my grandson, a member of this class, is about to become a lawyer. Being a lawyer is an honorable profession, and our obligation is to maintain it 

with honor. 

I feel certain that all of you will have that 

attitude toward being lawyers, and I wish 

you well as you go forth now into the practice. I hope that each one of you will find the 

American dream. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I remember the 

day very well when Judge Bell gave 

that commencement speech at Mercer 

Law School because that day his 

grandson Griffin, III graduated from 

Mercer Law School, and my son Bo 

graduated from Mercer that same day. 

I was privileged not only to be there to 

see my son graduate from law school 

but also to share the dais with Judge 

Bell and to introduce Judge Bell to 

make that commencement address. 

He was a great American. He was a 

great Georgian. He was a terrific lawyer with unparalleled credentials, unparalleled integrity, and someone who 

is going to be missed by our State and 

by our country. 

(Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the 

chair.) 

f 

ISRAEL 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, 

I also wish to discuss the security in 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE