[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
KING HOLIDAY AND SERVICE ACT OF 1994
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, the Senate will now turn
to the consideration of H.R. 1933, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1933) to authorize appropriations for the
Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday Commission, to
extend such Commission, and to support the planning and
performance of national service opportunities in conjunction
with the Federal legal holiday honoring the birthday of
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, my colleague and friend of the civil
rights movement, Representative John Lewis, and I originally introduced
S. 774 and H.R. 1933 on April 3, 1993, the day before the 25th
anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
This past weekend, I found myself remembering those tragic days
because of the death of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. One of the mental
photographs of Jacqueline that comes back to me-- and I am sure so many
of us--in vivid detail is her comforting Coretta King at Martin's
funeral. Widow comforting widow, helping to weather the storm, helping
to carry the burden. Coretta once suggested she could not have made it
through those days without Jacqueline.
Mr. President, I also remember a night in the mid-1950's when my wife
and I drove Martin and Coretta King from Baltimore to Washington after
Martin had sharply challenged the National Black Fraternity for
spending more money on its weekend convention than the whole annual
budget of the NAACP.
Sitting with my wife in the back seat, Coretta told of her recurring
nightmare that at the end of the road in the civil rights struggle,
Martin would be killed. He leaned back from the front seat and said she
should dream instead of all the things they could do while he was
alive. Then he added, ``I didn't ask for this. I was asked and said
yes.'' He hummed a line from the spiritual ``The Lord Asked Me and My
Soul Said Yes.''
Now, 25 years after Coretta's nightmare became a reality and some 10
years since Martin's birthday became a national holiday, what should we
do in remembrance of Martin? How should we say yes?
We should certainly celebrate, reflect on, and never forget the
victories won. While Martin Luther King was alive, the right to vote
was won in one-third of our country and segregation laws were struck
down everywhere in the land. In measuring those years, I want to say
that these were not little victories which the civil rights movement
won. As Senator Cohen suggested the other day and Senator Bradley has
so passionately argued for some time, we still have much work to do in
the area of race relations as we head into the 21st century.
We have not done so well in moving forward in our own time in the
last quarter of a century since Martin Luther King was taken from us.
But let us not demean history case by case, march by march, lunch
counter by lunch counter, jail by jail, martyr by martyr, Executive
order by Executive order, and, finally, law by law. The civil rights
movement made history and ended undemocratic laws and practices in one-
third of our country.
But it is not enough to remember victories won. Martin would want us
to raise our sights to the work yet to be done.
In his sermon the night before he was killed, he said he had been to
the mountain top and had seen the promised land and might not reach it
himself. He was no longer afraid of any man, or death itself, he said.
And he was ready to climb the whole range of mountains still ahead.
When he died, he was just trying to move up the next steep slope--the
mountain of poverty in our cities, the mountain of class mixed with
race, the mountain faced by a generation of young people denied hope
and opportunity. Martin would have found it a scandal to let another
generation of young Americans fall into a vicious cycle of poverty,
drugs, crime, prison, even death. He could hardly have imagined that an
estimated 100,000 American children would bring guns to school each
day. Martin would not have accepted the epidemic of crime and senseless
youth violence that is spreading across cities, suburbs, and rural
communities in our country. A recent Business Week article estimated
crime and violence are costing us $425 billion a year. But the
spiritual cost is much higher and much more important. Think of the
terrible impact on a classroom when a student pulled out a gun and
killed a fellow student. That happened in a small town in Pennsylvania.
Given a challenge like that, nothing would have aroused Martin more,
even angered Martin more than people supposedly honoring him by sitting
home watching TV or sleeping late. The King holiday, should be a day on
not a day off; a day of action, not apathy; a day of responding to
community needs, not a day of rest. Martin would want the holiday
honoring his birthday to be a day of reflection not recreation, service
not shopping, a day not only of words but of deeds.
As President Clinton suggested at my alma mater Howard University,
Martin Luther King lived and died in the fight to remind us of what is
the greatest struggle in our lives in the present day--how to close the
gap between our words and our deeds. The Martin I knew would not just
be talking about battling violence, crime, drugs, and other problems
plaguing our society. He would get out in the community, get his hands
dirty, tackle the problems head on. When we honor him, we should do no
less.
Mr. President, that is what this bill before us today does. It
answers the questions ``How do we say yes?'' and ``How do we honor
Martin Luther King?'' That is really the heart of this debate that I am
having with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina: should
America honor Martin Luther King and, if so, how?
The King Holiday and Service Act of 1993, as H.R. 1933, passed the
House of Representatives by unanimous consent under specialty rules on
March 15.
The King Commission has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both
Chambers. The King Commission was first established on August 27, 1984,
by President Reagan. Under the leadership of President Bush, the Senate
voted on May 2, 1989, to extend the Holiday Commission and authorized 5
years of appropriations at $300,000 per year. The Senate passed the
measure 90 to 7 and it was signed into law on May 17, 1989, 90 to 7.
This year there were 105 cosponsors of H.R. 1933 in the House,
representing Members on both sides of the aisle. In the Senate, we have
17 bipartisan cosponsors including 6 members of the Judiciary
Committee, which has jurisdiction.
On April 13, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing chaired by
my able colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun on S. 774. The Judiciary
Committee marked up the bill H.R. 1933 as it was passed by the House
and reported the bill out without objection by voice vote on May 5.
The legislation has the strong support of President Clinton, Jack
Kemp, Coretta Scott King, numerous mayors and Governors, a lot of
religious, labor, civil rights, and educational organizations ranging
from the AFL-CIO to the Mennonite Central Committee and the National
Catholic Educational Association.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a letter from
President Clinton indicating his support for the Commission's
reauthorization.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, January 17, 1994.
Hon. Harris Wofford,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Harris: Thank you for your letter on the King Holiday
and the problem of youth violence.
Our nation is indebted to you for your groundbreaking work
in advancing the case of civil rights both as an advisor to
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and as a special assistant to
President Kennedy. I know that your ideas about the power of
nonviolent citizen action had a real impact on Dr. King's
thinking and strategy and you, in turn, know of the impact
that Dr. King had on my life and on my own call to public
service.
I have reviewed the legislation that you and Representative
Lewis have introduced to extend the work of the King Holiday
Commission to promote community service as part of both the
Holiday observance and its activities with young people
throughout the year. Given the close association you and John
had with Dr. King, it seems only fitting that the two of you
should lead this effort together.
I fully support the reauthorization of the King Holiday
Commission and look forward to working with you on this
legislation. Making the promotion of community service part
of the Commission's work is an appropriate way to honor Dr.
King, and is in keeping with the Commission's effort to
combat youth violence.
Dr. King lived and died in the fight to remind us of what
is the greatest struggle in our lives, in the present day--
how to close the gap between our words and our deeds, between
where we ware as a society and where we would like to be.
Your legislation will help us close this gap and ensure that
we continue to remember Dr. King not only by what we say, but
by what we do.
I thank you for your work for the King holiday and our
nation's youth.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. WOFFORD. I ask unanimous consent to put in the Record a
remarkable speech given the day before yesterday at Drexel University
by Teresa Heinz, whose husband's seat I have the honor to fill.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Leadership in the Post-Political Age
(By Teresa Heinz)
Thank you. When Bob Hall asked me to speak to you today on
the subject of leadership, I was delighted, but a bit
concerned. Talking to this group about leadership is like
talking to Steven Spielberg about movie-making.
Nonetheless, this is precisely the short of group with whom
I would want to discuss this subject. I have become a
proponent in recent years of a certain kind of leadership,
one which places greater responsibility on people like you
and me. It is not only fitting that we discuss this, but
essential.
Leadership is a subject that inspires strong opinions,
especially among people who are leaders themselves. Garry
Wills writes in his new book Certain Trumpets: The Call of
Leaders, ``Tell me who your admired leaders are, and you have
bared your soul.''
Necessity has forced me in recent years to search my soul
for a definition of leadership. I have always been a leader,
ever since I was a young girl. That's the product, I think,
of always having had a strong sense of place and self. But my
understanding of leadership has been refined by three recent
challenges.
The first was my husband's death in 1991, which forced me
to reflect deeply on the qualities that made him so very
special as a leader. ``Real leadership,'' he once said,
``involves persuading people to do something now that will
bear fruit in the future.''
John appended that definition with a cautionary note. ``Too
many people,'' he said, ``live only in the short term.
Instead of clearly seeing what is demanded of us, instead of
understanding and learning from the past, instead of charting
a new course for tomorrow, too many Americans are allowing
themselves to be manipulated into quarreling with the past
and denying the realities of the present.''
He spoke those words in 1979, and they ring even more true
today. But to his definition of leadership, I would add the
qualities that made him so special. These were very much
qualities of the human spirit--joy, optimism, curiosity, a
willingness to take risks, a love of people, a belief that he
could make the world a better place and the gritty
determination to make it happen. These, too, are the
hallmarks of leadership, and they are qualities we all can
share.
The second circumstance that challenged me to think of
leadership in new ways came when I succeeded John as chairman
of the Howard Heinz Endowment and conceptualized what has
come to be known as the Heinz Family Philanthropies--a
unifying identify for our foundations that protects the
unique leadership of each. As a public figure, John was and
had to be avowedly discrete about his philanthropy. He never
wanted to risk the perception that he was using philanthropy
for personal political gain. As a private citizen, I faced
no such peril, and so I felt an obligation to explore
opportunities for transforming the traditionally quiet
world of philanthropy into a dynamic force for change.
The third recent influence on my perception of leadership
came when I was asked last year to seek election to the
Senate. That forced me to consider where I, as a leader,
could be most effective. And what I realized--no offense to
my husband or to Harris Wofford--looking back at John's
special qualities and how anyone can share them . . . and
looking at the many models for non-political leadership I was
unearthing through our philanthropy . . . what I realized was
that leadership is not restricted to Washington . . . that
often the most effective leadership of our times is coming
not from government but from deep within the vast American
heartland, from private citizens in business, in non-profits,
in academia, in communities. I realized that my opportunity
as a leader, and thus my responsibility, was to foster and to
nurture that leadership, to harness and bring to light the
leadership of others.
The temptation to seek public office was great, of course.
If you're like me and most Americans, there are times--when
you read the paper or watch the news--that you find yourself
thinking you could do better, or pining for the leaders of
yesteryear. Where, you wonder, is this generation's
Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy or King? So great is our thirst
for the leadership of the past that even Richard Nixon, who
was in many ways one of our strongest presidents, has been
reborn, by all accounts the patron saint of misunderstood
greatness.
As I peered down the gauntlet of electoral politics, I
reached this conclusion: We may yet see the emergence of
other Martin Luther Kings, other non-politician leaders, and
in all likelihood that is the prototype for leaders of the
future. The days of the great politicians, though, of the
great men guiding us from the White House toward even grander
visions, are at an end.
This is not, as is so fashionable to believe, the fault
solely of the present generation of politicians. The
politicians haven't changed so much as we--and the power of
their offices--have. To quote Garry Wills again, ``We do not
lack leaders . . . We lack sufficient followers . . . Calls
are always going down into the vasty deep; but what spirits
will respond?''
Our spirits today seem resistant to political followership.
I do not believe we have outgrown history's need for great
leaders, just that politics has lost its capacity to provide
them. We are living in a time that, for lack of a better
term, can be called post-political.
By that, I do not mean that politics is a thing of the
past. Rather, I mean that government, at least in this
country, has lost its primacy as a venue for real leadership.
Further, I mean that our leadership needs have changed, in a
way not well-suited to our present notions of politics and
government. To understand how, we must first understand what
has happened to politics and to us, so let me briefly touch
upon what I see as the most significant changes. In no
particular order, they are:
First, we as a society have grown more cynical and lost
faith with our politicians. Television is partly to blame--it
has made us shallowly familiar with our politicians and them
with us, and this kind of thirty-second-deep familiarity does
breed contempt. But the cause is less important now than the
result, which is a wholesale disregard for politics and its
practitioners. Lately this has manifested itself in a mass
conversion to the politics of reform--from term limits to a
desire to kick the bums out, as long as it's the other guy's
bum. As The New York Times noted recently, suddenly everyone
is a reformer.
This iconoclasm may be long overdue, but its practitioners
generally offer little in the way of inspiration. We know
what they are against, rarely what, if anything, they are
for. Personally I support reform, but policitians can not
repurchase the loyalty of the American people by foregoing
lobbyist-sponsored junkets. That is not leadership. Great
leaders understand that they are also symbols; what do the
iconoclasts symbolize but a repudiation of themselves?
Second, we suffer from the rise of a political class.
Ironically, so many politicians have become reformist
converts because they see it as the ticket to their
professional futures. Thus does the status quo perpetuate
itself. And like any professional class, politicians are prey
to the belief that they alone are the experts of their
craft--a deleterious notion in a representative democracy.
Political careerism inflicts other damage. Politicians are
all too human, and like most professionals they worry about
furthering their careers or just keeping their jobs. Some of
you may know that I recently spoke out against assault
weapons. One of the reasons that I stepped forward on this
issue is that I could, while so many politicians would not.
Cowed by powerful interest groups, career politicians must be
driven by the anger of the people to take a stand. Ours is a
time in which the alleged leaders are very often the
followers.
Third, we suffer from stifling deficits. There is little
money, and even less political will, for experimentation, let
alone the sweeping visions of the past.
Fourth, we suffer from government made moribund by
bureaucracy. There are many good people in the public sector,
but their sheer numbers overwhelm us. Bureaucrats are prone
to what Daniel Boorstin calls the bureaucratic fallacy, which
he summarizes by quoting the sign over a French civil
servant's desk. Translated, it read, ``Never do anything for
the first time.'' What hope do bureaucrats offer for the
innovation and willingness to take risks that are so inherent
to real leadership?
Fifth, we suffer from a diminished sense of citizenship.
Harry Boyte, a senior fellow at the Hubert H. Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs, has written that, ``From a
nation of citizens, we have become a nation of clients.'' He
quotes a politician who concluded after years of public
service that government today ``largely means the delivery of
benefits to the appreciative, paid for by the oblivious.''
I think that's optimistic. More aptly, today government
means the delivery of benefits to the entitled, paid for by
the overburdened. Too often, we as a society believe
government owes us something, but we don't want to pay for
it. How distant seems John F. Kennedy's appeal for a
citizenry mindful of what it can do for its country.
As a whole, these changes have produced a political system
disengaged from the people, and a people disengaged from
issues and politics. We are left with a political system that
cannot lead and a public that can not and will not follow.
Something deeply structural is at work here, too, and not
just in the United States. It has to do with the still-
unfolding communications revolution and the birth of what has
been called the global village. The homogenization of culture
at a global level has produced a backlash at the local level.
Around the world we see societies and their sub-groups
growing increasingly defensive of their cultures, their
political and economic systems--in short, of their
identities.
Ironically, the very globalization that so threatens these
groups confers upon them greater power. This is what John
Naisbitt calls the ``global paradox''--how our global union
empowers ever smaller forces of division. Thus is it that the
dictators of Haiti learn from the warlords of Somalia the art
of using the global theater to hold the world at bay.
This transfer of power to smaller, often non-traditional
groups has its dangers. As we look around the world today, we
are tempted to repeat the adage, ``Everything old is new
again.'' Countries in Europe and Africa are disintegrating
back to old borders. Ancient hatreds drench the earth with
blood in Bosnia and Rwanda. Racial antagonism is resurgent in
America. We wonder whether the model for our future will be
the peace process in the Middle East and the breathtaking
liberation of South Africa, or the earthshaking rage of Los
Angeles.
But the truth is, none of this . . . none of it . . . is
merely a revival of things old. It embodies a struggle toward
something new, new insights into human affairs, a new form of
organizing principle. It is a terribly difficult transition.
At times it seems as though some vengeful god has unleashed
upon us the dogs of chaos. The disorder and uncertainty of
our present circumstances are new and frightening, and they
tempt us to revert to the defining identities of the past--
the old leaders, the old values, the old customs, and yes,
sometimes, the old hatreds.
The traditional role of government in times such as these
has been to suppress chaos, which is precisely what we expect
of it. But I suggest that that is both impossible and unwise.
The Chinese have two symbols to express the idea of crisis--
one means danger, the other means opportunity. This neatly
captures our dilemma: We are at a fracture point in human
history, where either we will break terribly with the present
and revert to the past, or we will seize the opportunity we
have been given to seek the new.
The entire world, it seems to me, is struggling with a
question that it must answer and can not avoid forever. That
question has to do with community: Just what is it? Is it
nation? Which nation? Is it history? Whose history? Is it
neighborhood? Is it ethnic group? Is it like-mindedness?
Those questions cannot be answered on behalf of anyone
anymore. The world has changed too much, power has shifted
too irrevocably, for us to put the populist genie back in
the bottle.
I offer as a guide a thought from Aristotle: ``A state is
not a mere society, having a common place,'' he
wrote.``Political society exits for the sake of noble
actions, and not for mere companionship.'' That idea suggests
a foundation for communities of the future. We are not here
to keep each other company--we are here to help each other.
There is an analogy for our situation in the natural world.
Studies of the environment have revealed that the apparent
chaos of nature belies an underlying order. Almost
everything, we have learned, is connected, into what students
of biodiversity like to call ``the web of life.''
We have also learned that the web's very existence depends
on the complexity that we perceive as chaos. That chaos is
nature's creative heartbeat, its source of evolution and
adaptation, without which it will die.
In post-political America, the task of government is not to
suppress the emergent chaos in human affairs, but to manage
it, to direct it, and to keep it from disintegrating into
violence. It is to resist the forces of extremism whose
discomfort with uncertainty leads them to cry out for their
idea of order and to drive a bloody stake between themselves
and others.
The role of our political leaders is to safeguard the new
source of real leadership in America. No longer vested in
government, that leadership is springing forth from us, and
from people nothing like us, our common bond a willingness to
respond to crisis and the vision to pursue opportunity. In
our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our workplaces, in
these places leadership is happening. It is there that
leaders still step forward willing to take risks, risks tiny
in global terms, but huge for the individuals--who
nonetheless dare to experiment, to innovate, to step outside
the confines of present circumstances and create a new and
better future.
This is the premise of the work we are doing at the Heinz
philanthropies. We seek to support these new leaders and the
programs they invent or that we invent with them, and to
unite them in partnership with a government so desperately in
need of their insight and courage.
As some of you may know, the Heinz Family Foundation, one
of the Heinz Family Philanthropies. recently created the
Heinz Awards, which every year will recognize five
individuals for a combination of vision and achievement in
the areas of the arts, technology and economic growth, public
policy, the environment, and what I call the human condition.
The Awards, each of which is for $250,000, will draw
attention to men and women who are proving that individual
really can make a difference. By their actions, these modern
heroes personify a breed of citizenship as promising and
enduring as any our country has ever known . . . one driven
by the same spirit as drove my husband, not just in politics,
but in all walks of life.
When I referred to you as leaders at the opening of these
remarks, it was not to compliment you. If anything, it was to
challenge you. To you and others like you . . . to all
Americans on whom life has smiled by giving them power, or
money, or prestige, or insight, or intellect, or charisma, or
talent, or health, or energy . . . to all such Americans has
fallen the responsibility for guiding this country into the
next century.
I spoke a moment ago of the web of life. America, if you
think about it, is itself a great web--a web of diverse
peoples . . . drawn from different ethnic backgrounds, races,
religions, nationalities, and convictions . . . woven
together by shared dreams and aspirations, and yes, by shared
tragedies and hardships.
These are the silvery threads that draw us together into a
great nation. This is the source of the creativity that in
the past has made us--and more than ever in the future will
continue to make us--a model for the world.
The web pulsates with the creative energy of countless men
and women who are awakening to their power and
responsibilities as leaders. The scale of their deeds may
sometimes seem small, buy by their spirit they fuel our
future. The moment in our history has arrived when we must
stop awaiting the return of the leaders of the past, and must
embrace instead the heroes within, the hope for tomorrow.
The people in this room are leaders. Embrace your
leadership. Encourage the leadership of others. Our future is
truly in our hands.
I want to conclude by expressing again my appreciation for
this opportunity to speak to you. The University honors me
with its degree, and you honor me even more by your audience.
Thank you.
Mr. WOFFORD. Mrs. Heinz in accepting an honorary degree urged that we
look not to elected officials so much, but to look even more to
leadership coming from the private and the independent sector, look to
the Martin Luther Kings of the future, she said, rather than to any of
us political leaders who hold public office. That is another reason to
promote and strengthen the Commission and the holiday, to help produce
the future Martin Luther King, in the large scale or in the small
scale, in the Nation at large or in each community.
This modest but important bill reauthorizes the Martin Luther King
Holiday Commission and is designed to help transform the observance of
Martin King's birthday into a national day of service and action. It is
designed to remember Martin the way he would have liked: a day that
reflects his proposition that ``everybody can be great because
everybody can serve.'' A day that brings the greatness out in people--
especially the young--by bringing them together to make a difference in
their communities, fixing parks, tutoring children, rebuilding schools,
ending poverty, feeding the hungry, immunizing children, housing the
homeless.
Our legislation enables the current King Commission to organize the
holiday as a fitting tribute to Martin Luther King, a day of
interracial cooperation, antiyouth violence efforts, and community
service. Linking the King Commission chaired by Coretta Scott King with
the Corporation on National and Community Service, the bill will
encourage service opportunities across the Nation in conjunction with
the holiday.
Mr. President, today the King Commission is on the front lines
helping young people say no to crime, drugs, prejudice, and violence,
and say yes to nonviolence and community service. The Commission has
formed partnerships with law enforcement agencies, business and
professional organizations, including the National Basketball
Association, the National Football League, religious organizations,
schools and families to sponsor Youth Against Violence symposiums.
These symposiums have taught over 40,000 at-risk young people Dr.
King's message of nonviolence and helped them get the resources to
solve problems and turn their lives around. The Commission's good work
in this area needs to be strengthened.
We can put more cops on the street, and with our tough new crime
bill, we will. We can crack down on career criminals. And we should. We
can provide more opportunities for young people to get the education
and training they need to be productive, law-abiding citizens. And we
must. But at some point we all know there is a limit to what Government
alone can do to respond. Changing a culture of violence and
permissiveness will take all of us, as citizens and parents. And that
is what this holiday ought to be a about. And that is part of what this
Commission has been doing since its inception.
Mr. President, this bill accounts for $300,000 next year out of the
$1.5 trillion budget. It is not as important as comprehensive health
care reform that the Labor and Human Resources Committee, on which I am
serving, is marking up this week. It is not welfare reform. It is not
legislation that will change our national unemployment system into a
reemployment system, as we have done in Pennsylvania. Nor is it as
significant as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or any other
number of vital measures this Congress needs to craft and pass in
nonpartisan fashion this year. But this is a good bill, for a good
Commission that with very modest resources has labored to keep Martin
Luther King's dream alive.
It is good that all 50 States have finally adopted the national
holiday. But this milestone does not mean the Commission's work is
done. On the contrary, I think some of the most important work is just
beginning.
Imagine what a million Americans could do in just 1 day of community
service. And think what they could do if they carried on that service
throughout the whole year working together. Some people have said we do
not need a Federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King. Some have
said it is time to sunset the King Commission and no longer try to
organize the holiday to be something more than a day of rest and
recreation or to get more Americans to observe the holiday--only 18
percent of businesses do for example. I disagree on both counts. We
need this Commission to work actively to make that day a sunrise of
service, of building common ground, of reflecting on how far we have
come and how far we still must travel.
A little more than a quarter century after Martin's violent death, I
believe great days can be ahead--if we learn to seize those days. If we
do it together. If we recognize that to do our duty we must be more
inventive and go forth to the front lines of our society, to make a
reality of the American dream of equal opportunity for all.
Today this body has an opportunity to show the American people that
we can come together on both sides of the aisle. Today, as we hear new
voices of hatred and prejudice and see too many acts of racism and
bigotry and ethnic cleansing, we have a chance to promote racial
harmony. Together, as crime grips our society, we as Democrats and
Republicans have a chance to say ``no'' to violence and ``yes'' to
nonviolence. Today we have a chance to reaffirm Martin's proposition
that we must meet hate with love and that we are at our best when we
are serving others--the drum major instinct that he called for. Today
as public servants of all stripes and ideologies, we have a chance to
appeal to the better angels of our nature and remember a man and a
movement that represented the best of what America stands for.
As Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and
now codirector of Empower America, said so eloquently at our recent
hearing:
This bill is not a right-left issue, or a conservative-
liberal issue * * *. It is an issue for all Americans devoted
to the principles and ideals for which Martin Luther King
gave his life and fought.
Words--Martin's words--will always be part of what we celebrate. Next
to Lincoln's, his are probably the most moving words in American
history. But let us remember Martin most of all by his deeds--and honor
him by our own.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Helms].
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the distinguished manager on the other side mentioned
to me that the able Senator from Illinois would like to speak next, and
I am perfectly willing to do that. As a matter of fact, it will be an
accommodation to me because I need to meet with some foreign visitors
in connection with my responsibilities as ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee. But I would like to spend a couple of minutes
first while I offer an amendment to the bill.
Amendment No. 1738
(Purpose: To restore the original purpose of the Martin Luther King,
Jr., Holiday Commission by ensuring that only private funds are used by
the Commission)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 1738.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. 1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act no
federal funds shall be used for the purpose of funding the
Martin Luther King Federal Holiday Commission.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is to be utilized under the
first-degree amendment before it is in order to offer the second-degree
amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I can solve that by asking for the yeas,
and nays, can I not?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is right.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered. The first amendment will be temporarily set aside.
Amendment No. 1739 to Amendment No. 1738
(Purpose: To restore the original purpose of the Martin Luther King,
Jr., Holiday Commission by ensuring that only private funds are used by
the Commission)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The second-degree amendment therefore is
an amendment in the first degree. The second-degree amendment cannot be
offered as a first-degree amendment unless the first-degree amendment
is temporarily laid aside.
So the second amendment is the amendment in the first degree, may the
Chair ask?
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to offer this second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request? Hearing
no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 1739 to amendment numbered 1738.
In the pending amendment strike all after the word ``Sec.''
and insert: ``1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
Act no Federal funds shall be used for the purpose of funding
the Martin Luther King Federal Holiday Commission. This
section shall become effective 1 day after the date of
enactment.''
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I ask what the time situation is?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina has
remaining on debate 28 minutes and 36 seconds. That is on the bill. He
has half of the 2 hours on the first amendment that he has introduced.
He has half of the 1 hour on the second-degree amendment that he has
introduced.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The other side has 15 minutes remaining
for debate.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, is it in order for me to yield 15 minutes
of the time I otherwise would take on the opening statement to the
distinguished Senator from Illinois?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is in order for the Senator to do so,
if he so wishes.
Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that be done so she will have 30
minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the
Senator from North Carolina needed time in order to attend a meeting. I
am prepared to defer and allow him that time at this point so as not to
interfere with the rest of his schedule.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has been yielded
15 minutes by the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. WOFFORD. I yield whatever time the Senator from Illinois needs
from leadership time which she vitally needs for debate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
If she wishes to utilize it, she has 30 minutes.
The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the
pending amendments.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 1933, the
King Holiday and Service Act of 1993. H.R. 1933 will extend the life of
the Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday Commission, which was
created in 1984 to assist in the celebration of the first King Federal
holiday. The Commission is entrusted with keeping Dr. King's dream
alive by making his birthday celebration more than just another day off
work, but instead a day for all people to come together and serve their
communities.
Mr. President, last week we observed the 40th anniversary of the
Supreme Court's decision in Brown versus the Board of Education. Many
Senators, including myself, offered tributes to the Court's opinion in
Brown, which started this Nation down the long and troubled road toward
equal opportunity for all citizens, regardless of race or religion or
gender or national origin. But as important as the Supreme Court's
decision in Brown was--and make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the
Brown decision was arguably the most important Supreme Court decision
in the 20th century--it did not in and of itself end segregation and
discrimination in America. In the years following Brown, the entire
South still lived under the domain of Jim Crow. Blacks were still
relegated to the back of the bus, were still banned from the white
lunch counters, and were still not allowed to use the same bathrooms or
water fountains as whites. Interracial marriage was prohibited--by
law--in many States, and any black who attempted to vote was quite
literally risking his or her life.
For the Brown decision could not, with the stroke of a single pen,
change the attitudes and beliefs of the American people. The Supreme
Court could not, with one decision or two decisions or ten decisions,
wipe out the troubled legacy of discrimination in America. The Supreme
Court could not even guarantee that the actual plaintiffs in Brown
would ever attend desegregated schools. The fact is, they never did,
nor did thousands of children that came after them. Wiping out
discrimination, and ensuring equality for all Americans, would require
far more than the directives of the Highest Court in this land. And
when, in 1956, the young minister of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church,
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., organized a boycott of the segregated bus
system in Montgomery, AL, America had found the leadership, the
answers, that even the Supreme Court could not provide.
America has changed a great deal in the days since Martin Luther King
first sprung to national prominence. The laws that created a dual
society in so many parts of this land have been struck down.
Segregation in public bathrooms and lunch counters has ended, and
official barriers to the right to vote have been rejected.
And so many of these changes can be directly attributed to the work
of Dr. King. His life was dedicated to fighting for justice and
equality not just for African-Americans or the poor, but for all
Americans. He shared with us his dream of a society where the doors of
opportunity and prosperity were closed to no one, and he challenged us
to make that dream a reality.
Dr. King also taught us that our diversity was our strength, not our
weakness. He stood and worked against prejudice, discrimination, and
hate in all its forms. And in the end, he gave us our most potent
weapon with which to fight the evils of poverty, prejudice, and
discrimination: a belief in the inherent goodness and dignity of every
human being. As Dr. King told us so many years ago:
Everyone can be great because everyone can serve. You don't
have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to
make your subject and verb agree to serve * * * you only need
a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. And you can
be a servant.
But as far as we have come since Martin Luther King's tragic death,
it is clear that we have a long way to go. In many ways, since the
gains made by the Brown decision and by the work of Dr. King, our
Nation is becoming more and more separate, and less and less equal. Dr.
King would find it a scandal that so many young people are still born
into poverty, still receive an inadequate education, and still have no
chance of achieving the American dream. He certainly would not believe
that juvenile arrests for murder increased by 85 percent in a recent 5-
year period, and that approximately 135,000 students now carry guns to
school every day. He would be distressed that hate crimes--crimes
committed against a victim chosen solely due to their race, religion,
gender, sexual orientation, or country of national origin--are on the
rise in cities throughout the United States. And, 40 years after Brown
versus the Board of Education, he would be troubled that, in my
hometown of Chicago, more than 90 percent of black students still
attend either mostly black or predominately minority schools.
Mr. President, there have been some who say it is time to sunset the
King Commission, that--with the holiday recognized in 49 States, and in
New Hampshire as Civil Rights Day, the work of the King Commission is
complete. In fact, just the opposite is true. As the facts I have cited
above demonstrate, the message of Dr. King--his message of love, of
nonviolence, of unity among the races, and of hope--is perhaps more
relevant and more necessary today than ever.
Since its inception, the Martin Luther King Federal Holiday
Commission has striven to keep Dr. King's dream alive. Centered around
the themes of ``remember, celebrate, and act,'' the Commission has
worked year round to ensure that the holiday lives up to its full
potential as a day of community service and interracial cooperation.
Working with only modest appropriations and a paid staf of two, the
Commission has responded to literally thousands of requests for
information and distributed millions of pieces of literature on the
subject of Dr. King and the day set aside to honor him.
In a time when more and more people in our society see fit to resolve
the most trivial of conflicts by picking up a gun or a knife, the
Commission has worked to train people--particularly young people--in
the principles of nonviolence. At a time when many communities in our
Nation are falling apart, it has encouraged people of all ages to honor
Dr. King by becoming involved in community service and making the
neighborhoods where they live a better place. At a time when division
among the races seems to be increasing, rather than decreasing, at a
time when a particularly hateful speech sparked an official
condemnation from the U.S. Senate, it has promoted unity and
understanding among the races. Activities sponsored by the Commission
range from youth against violence seminars to ``I have a dream'' youth
assemblies to the recent 30th anniversary March on Washington.
The work of the Commission is only beginning. Recent surveys show
that only 18 percent of Fortune 500 companies recognize Dr. King's
Holiday. Many people, who know nothing more about the holiday than the
controversy surrounding its creation, mistakenly assume the day is a
celebration only for African-Americans. That misinterpretation is a
great disservice to a man who devoted his life to uniting people of all
races. And there are young people who are completely unaware of the
contributions, the sacrifices, that Dr. King made for this country.
Furthermore, merely establishing a King holiday in every State is not
enough. For if we allow this holiday to become nothing more than
another day of rest and relaxation, of sleeping later and bargain
sales, we have failed. We have failed the memory of Dr. King, and we
have failed the potential within each of us--the potential to achieve
greatness through service.
That is why passage of H.R. 1933 is so important. The bill will
reauthorize the King Commission for a period of 5 more years, and give
it sufficient funds to continue its good work. In addition, the
legislation will broaden the mandate of the King Commission to include
the promotion of community services activities. The bill will give the
Commission on National and Community Service [CNCS], which was created
by the national service bill, the authority to make grants to pay for
the Federal share of planning and implementing services activities in
conjunction with the Federal holiday. The service activities will be
consistent with the life and teachings of Dr. King, such as cooperation
and understanding among racial groups and nonviolent conflict
resolution. Federal grants can comprise no more than 30 percent of the
cost of such events.
Think about this for a minute--a holiday dedicated to the proposition
that each of us can make a difference. One day out of the year when
people of all races can come together and make their communities, and
consequently our Nation, a better place to live. The possibilities are
as endless as our needs. The day could be used to donate blood or
volunteer at a hospital, to clean up a park or plant flowers in an
inner-city neighborhood, to volunteer for the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts
or the Special Olympics, to tutor children or to work with those who
have AIDS. An investment of $300,000 is certainly money well spent if
it can inspire 10 or 20 million Americans put aside 1 day toward these
activities.
I have heard some argue that Federal commissions in general are
unnecessary, that in this time of budget deficits we should simply
eliminate all nonessential services. I am ready to debate that issue
should it be raised in the future. But let us not single out a
commission that has encouraged more than 4 million youth to sign a
pledge to reject violence, that has encouraged millions of people,
young and old alike, to devote their precious time to helping those
less fortunate, and has worked to unite individuals of all races. Don't
single out a commission that has been praised by the chairman of the
House subcommittee with oversight responsibilities as an example of an
organization that has carried out its mission admirably with only a
modest amount of Federal funds.
I had the privilege of chairing a Judiciary Committee hearing on this
legislation at which a number of distinguished witnesses appeared in
support of the bill, among them were Coretta Scott King, Jack Kemp,
former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and my colleague
from Pennsylvania, Senator Wofford. But the most impressive panel--and
I do not say this in any way to impugn my colleague--was a panel of
young people whose lives have been touched by the work of the
Commission. Three students from the University of North Carolina--one
white, one black, and one Indian--testified together in a touching
display of harmony among the races. But it was a young woman, Ms. Amy
Cammack, from Harrisburg, PA, who really struck me. Ms. Cammack is in
the eleventh grade at Bishop McDevitt High School in Pennsylvania, yet
she could teach those of us in the Senate a great deal. I would like to
quote today from Ms. Cammack's testimony.
``How interesting,'' Ms. Cammack said:
That those in power here in Washington don't see the
potential to help end violence, encourage community service
and advocate for cultural diversity through one of the
greatest leaders of this century.
The King Holiday Commission, she continued:
May be the only Federal entity in existence today whose
function it is to spread a message of peace, tolerance and
understanding--three critical keys to ending violence in our
communities.
Ms. Cammack concluded her testimony with the following:
What I fail to realize is the objective of closing the King
Holiday Commission. To save money? As the adults, those in
powerful positions, you always say to young people like me,
you are the future. Well, we need help. The King Holiday
Commission provides help. I think it can do more.
Well, I agree with Ms. Cammack. The King Holiday Commission can do
more, if we give it the chance. It can promote harmony and
understanding among the races. It can inspire people to give to their
communities, to make the world in which we live a better place, even if
only for a day.
The Washington Post, in an editorial endorsing the legislation we are
considering here today, recounted a story Dr. King told the night
before he was gunned down in Memphis in 1968, the story of the Good
Samaritan who finally helps to stop the injured man after so many had
passed him by, refusing to lend a hand. I would like to repeat that
story here today. Dr. King said that maybe those people who did not
stop to help the injured man were too busy, or they felt it better to
deal with the underlying causes of the problem than to get bogged down
with the individual. Or maybe they thought the individual was faking
it, or they were scared and thought, in the words of one who refused to
help, ``If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?''
But as Dr. King went on to explain, that question, the question of
``What will happen to me,'' was the wrong one to ask. The Good
Samaritan, the one who finally helped the injured man, knew that the
right question was ``If I do not stop to help this man, what will
happen to him?'' The Good Samaritan, Dr. King said, decided not to be
compassionate by proxy.
And so it is with the legislation before us today. We can refuse to
reauthorize the King Commission for a period of 5 years, or we can
refuse to give the Commission the adequate funds to complete its
mission, because we are worried about what might happen to us if we do.
Or we can choose the courageous path, the path of the Good Samaritan,
and realize that the proper question to ask is what will happen to
those in need if we do not. What will happen to the potential within
each of us, the potential to achieve greatness through service? That,
Mr. President, is a question I hope we do not have to answer.
Dr. King, the man who taught this Nation to work for justice through
nonviolent means, died a violent death in 1968, long before he could
see this Nation achieve the promise of which he knew it was capable. It
is up to the rest of us--all of us--to complete his agenda.
Throughout this debate I have stressed the importance of the
Commission's role in distributing information on Dr. King's life, in
teaching those in the younger generations, who were born after 1968
what he meant to our Nation. And that importance can never be
understated. America must never forget the meaning of Dr. King life,
for if we forget the tragic lessons of our history are we are doomed to
repeat them. We must continue to recognize the achievements of Dr.
King, and to build on those achievements as a way of ensuring that his
dream will one day become reality. Dr. King brought out the best in
people. The day set aside to honor him should do no less The King
Federal Holiday Commission will ensure that the holiday does just that.
I know that the President is an advocate and devotee of history. In
that vein, there is always the old expression, ``Those who do not know
history are bound to repeat its mistakes.'' I am compelled to remember
the fact that for many of the young people whose futures are so much at
stake--the Amy Cammacks of the world--for them, what transpired in this
country in the civil rights movement and post civil rights movement,
during that whole turbulent period of our history, it is exactly that;
it is ancient history to some of them. I remember speaking at a high
school, and a young, black female student said to me, ``Dr. King, he
was assassinated, right?'' Well, it occurred to me that she was not yet
born when all of this happened.
It seems to me that we have an obligation, not only to teach the
young people the lessons all of us learned from that history, but to
show them the way and to give them examples of the positive values that
came out of our coming together as a nation, of the positive values of
our cultural and racial and ethnic diversity, of the positive values of
learning to resolve disputes without violence, of the positive values
of pursuing peace. And that is a mission that this Commission has and
the mission that this Commission has so ably fulfilled in its brief
existence. It reaches out to young people. Again, you and I may have a
vivid, personal memory of Dr. King and what all of the issues were. To
young people born in 1972, who may serve as pages in this Chamber, who
are in school now themselves, this is something that could have
occurred in 1857, as far as they know, because it is not something that
is real to them, unless we, the adults make it real.
The King Holiday Commission seeks to continue to carry the message
forward, to take the history lessons to the young people, to give them,
by way of example, the notion that in nonviolence, in interracial
cooperation, by coming together, we can build a stronger America for
them to inherit in the 21st century. That is what this Commission has
done and I daresay has ably done.
Mr. President, the amendment seeks to strike the funding from the
bill. In that regard, I think that the intent, obviously, is to destroy
the work of this Commission. I point out that in the time of its
existence, Mr. President, this Commission has received high marks from
everyone who has looked at the operations of the Commission. There was
a study by Arthur Anderson with regard to this Commission, as well as
the House Oversight Subcommittee that looked into the operation of this
Commission. The chairman of that oversight committee called this
Commission an example ``of an organization that has carried out its
mission admirably, with only a modest amount of Federal funds.''
Mr. President, I will conclude at this point and reserve the
remainder of my time for later.
I think it is appropriate to hear the amendment first to be able to
react and respond to the amendment. But I say to you that the
importance of this Commission cannot be overstated. I think the
importance of this Commission was most aptly spelled out by the high
school student.
It seems to me that for every Member of this Chamber, carrying forth
positive values and teaching our young people positive values and
positive ways of interacting with each other is a small investment in
our present and their future. I encourage the support of this body for
this legislation.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I inquire about the time situation?
While I was in my meeting I noticed that there was a rather long quorum
call. Was that equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The quorum call was
charged on the first-degree amendment. The Senator still has 30 minutes
on the second-degree amendment.
Mr. HELMS. How much time do I have remaining, if any, on the opening
statement--on the bill itself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining on the bill.
Mr. HELMS. I have 13\1/2\ ? That many?
Suppose I begin to use time on the first-degree amendment, if that is
all right with the Parliamentarian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina will be
notified that it will take consent.
Mr. HELMS. I am sorry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina will be
advised that it will take unanimous consent to do that.
Mr. HELMS. All right, since I am the only one here except for the
distinguished occupant of the chair, I ask unanimous consent that that
be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have no illusions whatsoever about the
probable outcome of my effort to persuade the Senate to give some
genuine thought to the proposed extension of the Martin Luther King
Federal Holiday Commission, H.R. 1933.
The political reality is that the King Commission extension will be
approved again just as it has been before, despite the past assurances
that there would be--without fail--a sunset of Federal subsidies for
this outfit.
I remember in 1989 Sam Nunn, Senator Nunn, engaged in a colloquy with
the then Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Sanford on ending the King
Commission in 5 years: Oh, no question about it, both of them said it
will end in 1994. I saw Senator Nunn this morning at the White House
and he said, ``That is my recollection and I thought it was going to be
sunsetted.''
I do not know how Senator Nunn is going to vote but I know how
difficult it is, politically, for some Senators to look reality in the
face. The King Holiday Commission, despite the very clear promises of
its creators, is a case study of why Federal handouts do not work, and
why an irresponsible Congress--and no other phrase fits--why an
irresponsible Congress has saddled the American people with a $4.5
trillion debt.
I have already heard it said this is just a little bit of money, we
will not miss it. But it is sort of like Everett Dirksen said: A
million dollars here, a million dollars there and pretty soon you're
talking about real money.
Anyhow, Madam President, we are going to hear many emotional speeches
about Dr. King and his life and how he should receive official
devotion--official governmental devotion--that no other man or woman in
the history of the United States has received: Not Washington, not
Jefferson, not Lincoln, not Truman, not Eisenhower, not Kennedy.
Senators will be emotional, as they make these speeches. But the
trouble is that their speeches have nothing whatsoever to do with the
real issue. The issue is that the Congress has failed in its duty to
spend the people's money wisely and Congress has failed to live up to
the commitments, the flat-out commitments that were made in 1984, in
1986, in 1989, and again in 1994 regarding the King Holiday Commission.
In the beginning the King Commission was a temporary Commission. It
was not supposed to last long. And it was supported by private
donations.
Today, there are proposals being made to make the Martin Luther King
Commission a permanent--a permanent--drain on the American taxpayers.
Senator Moseley-Braun has a bill to do just that--make it permanent.
But let us review just a little bit of history. A lot of Senators do
not want to hear about history, but it is good for them to hear it
occasionally.
The Martin Luther King Holiday Commission was established in 1984
after Congress had determined, what? Here is what:
It is appropriate for the Federal Government to coordinate
efforts with Americans of diverse background and with private
organizations in the first observance of the holiday.
You notice I stressed ``first.'' Anybody's reading of that statute
leads to the conclusion that the Commission was intended to exist only
long enough to set up the first King holiday.
That occurred 10 years ago on January 19, 1984. Almost every Member
of Congress who supported the creation of the King Commission
stressed--no, emphasized--first, the point that the Commission would
exist for only 20 months and, second, that no Federal taxpayer funds
would ever, ever be used.
So what is new about such promises, Madam President? I will tell you
what is new. Nothing. We hear that sort of thing all the time. Here we
are today facing a lot of empty rhetoric so we can ignore the real
point.
Madam President, I recall what one Congressman, a supporter of this
bill, Mr. Addabbo, said back in 1984. To be honest about it, I did not
recall until I did a little bit of research. Here is what he said:
The maintenance and expenditures of the Commission are to
be made from privately donated funds and, therefore,
represent no further burden on the Federal budget.
I am sure he was sincere, but he was sincerely wrong on the facts as
later events have proved.
Then there was Mr. Courter of New Jersey who said on the floor of the
House of Representatives:
I would emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this Commission will
be functioning using private donations, private money. Dr.
Martin Luther King would have had it that way, I am quite
sure, if he could express his own desire.
OK. Then in 1986, Madam President, we heard arguments that the
Commission still needed just a few more years to complete the job it
had started 2 years before. So Congress, which dearly loves to spend
other people's money, extended the Commission's life for 3 more years
saying, ``of course, no more extensions after that.''
Once again, we heard proponents at that time stress over and over and
over and over again that the Martin Luther King Commission would
continue at that point to operate with private funds. No Federal money.
None, none, none.
Senator Bob Dole stood right here where I am standing now and said:
It should be emphasized that no Federal money is
appropriated for the Commission. Rather, it operates entirely
on donated funds. Under the extension legislation, the
Commission would continue to be funded from these sources,
[meaning private sources]. Expanding the size of the
Commission should also enhance its ability to raise private
sector funds.
I am not sure, but I think that Bob Dole has done more than probably
anybody else to help raise private funds for the Martin Luther King
project. You know what he believes. I just read it.
Now, Madam President, get this: At the time of the second extension
of the life of the King Commission in 1989, the Martin Luther King
Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta already was raising
between $20 million and $30 million a year privately. But many of the
same folks did not want to have to raise funds for the King Holiday
Commission as well, so they called Washington and said send us the
taxpayers' money. So in 1989, they came back to Congress but this time
with outstretched hands: ``Gimme, gimme, gimme.'' Although the King
Center and the King Commission are not legally bound, they share many
of the same officials and directors.
In 1989, they demanded $1.5 million for 5 years ``to encourage all
States to establish the King holiday as a paid holiday for employees''
and ``to learn how to bring protest campaigns.'' Oh, the plot thickens
now, does it not?
Madam President, prior to the debate in 1989 on federally funding the
King Commission, I had meeting after meeting after meeting with the
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Mitchell, the distinguished minority
leader, Mr. Dole, and the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr.
Nunn]. In each meeting, I said, ``Fellas, tell me why the American
taxpayers should be forced to provide funds to institutionalize and
maintain the King holiday--we do not do it for Washington's birthday or
anybody else?''
Every Senator emphasized then that he or she did not want the
Commission ever to become a never-ending burden on the taxpayers. So,
here we are setting it up again for another extension and more millions
in Federal dollars.
In 1989 they said 5 years would do the job, whatever the job was--
which by the way, I had a little difficulty finding out. Everything in
its legislative history indicates the King Commission was supposed to
go out of business. The Commission's supporters said it over and over
and over again in 1986 and in 1989: ``After this extension, the King
Commission--is over, it's gone.''
Let me offer just one example of the stated attitude of most Senators
when the most recent King Commission debate occurred on this floor on
May 2, 1989. I am going to read an exchange which you can read in the
Congressional Record.
It is an exchange between former Senator Terry Sanford, of North
Carolina, and the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], both
of whom I referred to a moment ago. Both of them were principal
cosponsors of the 1989 extension act. Here is what Senator Sanford said
to Senator Nunn regarding the King Holiday Commission:
Senator Sanford. When we vote for this bill, we are, in
effect, saying we think the Federal Government's help in
getting it [the King Commission] started will come to an end
in 5 years and we do not anticipate this is going to be a
permanent Federal agency.
Senator Nunn. That is my own view. As a matter of fact, if
we define the success of the Commission, it would be that we
would not need permanent appropriated funds to remind us each
year and that it [the King Holiday] would then be a part of
America's way of life.
Senator Sanford. I agree, and I would like the Record to
reflect this exchange, that it is not our intention to make
this a permanent matter but to make it simply a period of
time to get the whole concept established.
Senator Nunn. That is exactly right. I do not speak for
anyone else, but this is my view.
Madam President, it is a little discouraging, for those of us who
believe in responsible government, to look back at the abundance of
statements by a multitude of people, with everybody assuring that this
was the last extension, that this would be the end of it, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera--as the King of Siam was so fond of saying--only to
find that such assurances were empty. But when the roll was called
right here, the Senators marched in, they paid their respects to Dr.
King, and made sure that the television cameras were focused on them so
that everybody back home could know that they were voting for Dr. King.
They were not voting for Dr. King, they were voting for a bunch of
people who were--and are--confused about what to do with the taxpayers'
money. And I will get to that in a minute.
Senators voted in 1989 to spend $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money
that none of them, to my knowledge, was willing to spend from their own
pockets if they were asked to finance the project. Now, there may be
some few in the Senate who could say, ``Well, I contribute $15 myself
personally'' or $25 or whatever. But I say, Madam President, and I say
it in connection with so much of the spending that goes on in this
Senate and in the House of Representatives, it is always easy to be
charitable when somebody else is signing the check. It is so easy to
give away somebody else's money. What you are doing is you are giving
away money of the young people in the next generation. It is the
biggest cop-out in history.
Anyhow, here we are, it is 1994 and the song remains the same. Even
though the King holiday is now observed in all 50 States--which was
supposedly the original goal back when they started this organization--
the King Commission is back yet again seeking another couple of million
dollars more in handouts and another 5- year extension of time for the
life of the Commission. And you can bet that 5 years from now it will
be the same old story again. They will be back saying we need $2
million more and another 5 years of time.
Now then, let us look at the situation as it really is. The
Commission's affiliate, not legally but spiritually, is the King Center
in Atlanta, I am told. It is the number one tourist attraction in the
State of Georgia. And that King Center receives more than $20 million a
year in private donations which they have persuaded the major
corporations of America to contribute--$20 million.
But that is not enough. They want to continue to reach into the
taxpayers' pockets and continue to use Federal employees at Federal
expense to do the Commission's work. How many Senators know how many
Federal employees are assigned to that project full time? How much do
they make?
Well, we are going to put an audit by the world famous Arthur
Andersen & Co. in the Record sometime during this debate that details
how many and how much.
I just wonder how many Senators know, however, that when the
Commission was formed, the Congress--the Congress--generously provided
the Commission with Federal workers ``on loan.'' In fact, the
Commission's executive director, a fellow named Lloyd Davis, has been
``on loan'' from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
more than 10 years.
Now, this is not going to show up in the media. The newspapers are
not going to use it, and it will be the best kept secret on television
tonight. But this guy Lloyd Davis has been on the Department of Housing
and Urban Development payroll for 10 years, but for the entire 10 years
he has been working down there in Atlanta and drawing over $80,000 from
the Federal Government, meaning the taxpayers. That fact is not
included as part of this bill or any of the previous Commission
legislation.
Now, add to that, if you will, the Federal office space ``on loan''
to the Commission in both Atlanta and here in Washington. So the total
expenditures for the King project vastly exceed the $2 million actually
called for in this bill.
Now, that is what I think we ought to put a stop to. We have been
told time and time again that every extension is the last extension and
after this there will be no more sticking hands in the taxpayers'
pockets to fund the Commission.
Well, let us mean it this time, Senators. When you come to the floor
tomorrow to vote on the amendments, do what the Senate committed itself
to do not just this year, but in years past as well.
I think it would do well to read Mrs. Coretta Scott King's own words
as to the goals of the King Commission. The following is from a letter
addressed by Mrs. King to the former Senator from Georgia, Mr. Mack
Mattingly, dated January 20, 1986. Mrs. King said:
As you know, it is one thing to work for passage of Federal
and State legislation for such a holiday, another to mobilize
support to set the standards for an appropriate observance
and provide direction for citizen involvement and still
another to finally institutionalize the holiday and maintain
it.
All right, this lady actually makes most of my argument for doing
away with the Commission. The Government, after all, achieved Mrs.
King's first goal when Ronald Reagan signed the King holiday into law.
The Government achieved Mrs. King's second goal when it created the
King Commission, ostensibly for a limited period of time.
By the way, if you read page 105 of the Commission's own report for
1993, you will see what a mendacious man Ronald Reagan was. The
Commission on that page quotes from Julian Bond's 1993 King Holiday
speech in Jersey City, NJ. Let me read the report:
Julian Bond, former member of Georgia's House and Senate,
urged about 3,500 students at a Jersey City State College
celebration to make good on King's dream by finishing the
march the clergyman started toward civil rights. When King
was assassinated in Memphis in 1968, Bond said, he never
``imagined support for civil rights would die as well.'' But,
Bond asserted, ``by conservative policies and appointments,
President Bush and his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, have
weakened the rights of blacks and the public has done nothing
to stop it.''
Well, that is certainly a nonpartisan statement at taxpayers'
expense.
The point is this. Not one other Federal holiday receives the kind of
treatment the King holiday receives--as I said, not Washington's
Birthday, not Veteran's Day, not Memorial Day, not the 4th of July. On
rare occasions, temporary Federal commissions are formed to honor
events that will not recur, such as the Bicentennial of the
Constitution and the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Christopher
Columbus. As important as those events are, they should not be funded
by taxpayers, and I have never voted for one of them.
Imagine, if you will, the reaction, if the Federal Government should
use the taxpayers' money to tell the American people how to observe
Thanksgiving or Christmas--I can hear the ACLU now--much less if the
Government mandated what teachings are appropriate. I wonder how ruddy
the complexion of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts would be
if that sort of thing happened.
Of course, it is not going to happen. The American Civil Liberties
Union and its acolytes would descend on the Capitol like a swarm of
locusts if the Government even got remotely involved in Christmas or
Thanksgiving, much less Independence Day, but the same standard does
not apply to this King holiday. In the Commission's own report, they
say that they and they alone will decide how the King holiday is going
to be observed. If you do not believe me, go across the Potomac and ask
the service chiefs at the Pentagon.
As I said earlier, I do not doubt that the supporters of this
legislation are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong, in my judgment.
They should take a look at what is happening at the King Commission.
They should learn why the King Commission has become just another
Federal bureaucracy, plodding along with no real purpose or
accountability to the taxpayers.
Madam President, let us take a look at the oversight report of the
accounting firm of Arthur Andersen & Co., which concludes that the King
Commission is badly managed and poorly led.
I am reading verbatim from the Arthur Andersen & Co.'s summary report
on the King Commission itself. ``Our observations''--meaning the CPA
firm--``Commissioners are high level government and private officials--
Significant credibility but limited availability.''
Do you know how that is translated? That means they do not even show
up for the meetings--``Limited availability.'' That is right. They do
not show up.
``Lack of Commissioner, or Commissioner Representative, attendance at
Board Meetings.'' Their charter stipulates at least two board meetings
a year but the commissioners--as I say, do not even show up.
Then Arthur Andersen and Co. says the Board's various committees also
do not meet regularly. Commissioners do not exercise oversight over the
committees as the charter requires them to do. The executive director
is the guy ``forced to assume the responsibilities normally reserved
for the board.'' That is a quote from Arthur Andersen & Co.'s report.
Then under ``Current situation,'' the report says ``Nine separate
`program-oriented' Committees exist, but do not function. Confusion
exists regarding governance, roles, purpose, and authorized activities
of Committees.''
If anybody wants to examine that report they will find many examples
of lax control over who signs the commission's checks, and lax control
over cash receipts and petty cash.
This is the CPA, not Jesse Helms, who cited these irregularities.
According to the June 1993 maintenance request, the Commission's
Atlanta office building is in a shambles. Nobody is looking after it.
Nobody gets anything fixed. There is an animal control problem, a
possum has been living in the ground floor, trash is not picked up
regularly, and Commission records have been destroyed by water pouring
through a leaky roof. The King Commission's own Director of Operations
reports that the back porch floor boards ``are a hazard, especially to
the children should they need to use it as an emergency exit.''
Madam President, I do know not whether these problems have been
fixed. The King Commission says it has fixed its accounting problem,
although you cannot find that information in the 1993 report. But
problems have built up over the years, and they bring into question
whether we should continue to use the taxpayers' money to fund this or
any other holiday commission at any time in the future.
Finally, Madam President, is the money in this bill, $2 million over
a period of 5 years, better spent on a King parade in Atlanta, or
having the members of the King Commission staff travel first class
every time they take an airline journey, or repairing the Commission's
Atlanta office? Or is it better spent on the war on drugs, or cleaning
up crime in public housing? I think any Senator going home and asked
those two questions by his constituents would certainly respond
affirmatively to the second question.
But just watch when the roll is called tomorrow, and that door opens
and the delightful little pages are holding the doors so Senators can
gallop in at the last-minute. Watch how the Senators vote on this
proposal to extend the life of the King Commission. And while they so
vote, America will continue to lose the war on crime and the American
family will continue to disappear in terms of its traditional
priorities and principles.
The King Commission does absolutely nothing to address America's real
problems. The King Commission has asked for more and more of the
taxpayers' money, and the Senate up until now has sheepishly voted to
give the money away. And as they vote, try to keep in mind that this
Commission was originally created to help establish the first--and only
the first--Martin Luther King holiday. That has long since been
accomplished. But the outstretched hands demanding millions and
millions of the American taxpayers' money, well, Madam President,
forgive me but I think it is shameful that those hands are still
outstretched 10 years later. But the greatest shame is that the U.S.
Senate continues handing over the money with scarcely a question.
I ask unanimous consent that the report from the accounting firm of
Arthur Andersen & Co. dated January 13, 1992, and a maintenance request
by Mr. Al Boutin, Director of Operations at the King Commission, dated
June 1, 1993 be placed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, Report of
Management Review--January 13, 1992
governance and operations
Evaluate Governance Issues (see attached detail discussion--Exhibit
III)
Background information
Public Law 98-399--The Commission is created without
funding.
Creation of the Corporation.
The Extension Act--Re-establishing the Commission with
appropriations of $300,000 for 1990-1994.
Our observations
Commissioners are high-level government and private
officials--Significant credibility but limited availability.
Lack of Commissioner, or Commissioner Representative,
attendance at Board Meetings.
Committees do not meet regularly and have no consistent
oversight by Commissioners.
Executive Director forced to assume responsibilities
normally reserved for the Board.
Recommendations
Establish a 5 to 7 person Operating Committee consisting of
Commissioners with delegated authority to act for full
Commission--Meet bi-monthly.
Amend the Corporation's By-Laws to incorporate governance
by the Operating Committee described above.
The Operating Committee should formulate and document the
express authority of the Commission/Corporation's Executive
Director.
Combine governance, operations and focus of Commission and
Corporation in a formal, written document.
Perform a strategic visioning process
Develop strategic plan--
Revisit ``mission'' of the Commission and redefine as
necessary.
Conduct visioning process--Board retreat probably required.
Prepare specific 3 to 5 year plan.
Assess current commission objectives--
Define Corporation role for private sector--vs. Commission
role for Federal funding.
Conclude on location of operations--Atlanta vs. Washington
is not working.
Determine steps required to conform to revised vision.
Address operating issues
Current situation--
Nine separate ``program-oriented'' Committees exist.
Confusion exists regarding governance, roles, purpose and
authorized activities of Committees.
Determine committee focus and role--
Ensure consistency with ``vision'' and strategic plan.
Eliminate focus on ``operating'' programs--The Commission
should mobilize community, not operate programs on behalf of
the community.
Determine location and personnel needs--
Washington, DC, presence appears necessary--Atlanta office
location probably may not be.
Personnel staffing should be consistent with strategic plan
and revised operations.
internal control environmental
As part of every audit, Arthur Andersen & Co. considers the
entity's internal control structure to determine the scope of
our audit procedures. While we are unable to provide
assurances on the internal control structure as a whole, the
points listed below came to our attention in the September
30, 1991, audit that we want to make the Commissioners aware
of.
Eliminate usage of corporate charge cards.
Enhance controls over the check signing function.
Enhance controls over the cash receipts function.
Require that Board Minutes be signed.
Consider employing an accountant for the Washington, D.C.,
office.
Segregate responsibilities in the cash disbursements
function.
Consistently maintain voucher packages.
Clarify which entity's business the Minutes represent--
Corporation vs. Commission.
Segregate responsibilities over the petty cash fund.
specific transactions
Following is a summary of findings with respect to specific
transactions brought to our attention for review.
Checks written to Lloyd Davis--We noted 3 separate checks,
dated January 23, 1990, for $20,000, January 25, 1990, for
$2,000 and August 31, 1990, for $6,000. The first two checks
were for transfers of funds from the Washington, D.C.,
Corporation bank account into the Atlanta Parade Fund bank
account to cover expenses for the 1990 King Week Parade. Both
checks were promptly deposited directly into the Parade Fund
account. The third check was for the standard transfer of
funds from the Washington, D.C., account into the Atlanta
Corporation account. It was also promptly deposited directly
into the back. Checks should not have been payable to Mr.
Davis.
Checks written to King Center--These were for services
rendered or payment of rent ($10,000 per year). Since these
checks were written on the Corporation bank account, no
violation of policy occurred. (GSA must negotiate leases paid
with Commission appropriations).
Check written to Jerry Jarriels--This was for moving
expenses ($2,518) consistent with a written employment
agreement and supported by written estimate of United Van
Lines, which was lowest bid. Also written on Corporation bank
account; thus, no violation of statute.
Check written to Freedom Trail Fund--This was to transfer a
$5,700 payment, received (from DOD for publications) and
deposited into the Corporation's bank account, over to the
Freedom Trail bank account. This is consistent with treatment
of receipts for other Freedom Trail Program publication
sales. (The separate Freedom Trail bank account was closed
when transferred to the Atlanta office.)
Check written to Wright-Brown Electric Company--This was to
pay the invoice for services provided to prepare for the
Parade in Atlanta. Also written on the Corporation bank
account, thus, no violation of statute exists.
Check written to U.S. Student Association--This was a
payment in accordance with a contract between the Corporation
and the Association, whereby the Association prepared
materials for symposia at universities.
Check written to Democracy for China Fund--This was a
contribution given by the Corporation; thus, no violation of
statute exists. A detail memorandum from Lloyd Davis support
this $500 donation.
Checks written to Atlanta office of Corporation--These were
standard transfers of funds from Washington, D.C., bank
account to the Atlanta bank account.
Travel to Santa Fe Conference--Commission funds were used
to pay travel costs for Al Boutin's wife. When Lloyd Davis
became aware of this, he had Al Boutin reimburse the
Commission. We verified that the reimbursement occurred.
Payments to Printing Companies--The Commission/Corporation
purchased printing services from B. L. Graphics and Classic
Press. We noted adequate supporting documentation for these
payments. We have not been able to verify whether a
``related-parties'' relationship exists between Corporation/
Commission officials and the two printing companies.
1991 Prayer Breakfast Hotel Bill--Certain expenses for the
Washington, D.C., Grand Hyatt may have been personal expenses
of Ms. Madeline Lawson. This invoice could not be located,
and we are unable to conclude on this matter. The amounts
involved total $493.
____
June 1, 1993
To: Johnny Mack
From : Al Boutin [King Commission Director of Operations]
Subj: Office Maintenance
As requested by you last week, I am writing to request that
the following problems at 503 Auburn Ave. be attended to as
soon as possible.
1. The electrical switch (fuse) box continually trips the
downstairs air conditioning off.
2. Please check out the switch box which makes a funny
buzzing sound and may be a fire hazard.
2. The roof leaks and we have water damage to books, files,
furniture, etc.
3. We have an animal pest control problem. Small creatures
are running around the drop ceiling and shifting the tile
creating dust on the furniture. There are a number of boards
missing on the siding of the house and also holes where
squirrels or rodents could be entering. At one time we had a
possum living in the downstairs drop ceiling area.
4. The building should be sprayed for insects on a regular
basis.
5. We request that trash be picked up daily and that the
office be cleaned once a week, i.e. the bath rooms cleaned,
floors mopped and vacuumed, furniture dusted and polished.
The trash pickup has been almost daily, however, the routine
cleaning has been sporadic. We would request that a day for
cleaning be designated so we would know when to expect the
service.
6. We also noticed 3-4 wasp nets on the back porches which
are growing. Also the back downstairs porch has rotted wood
floor boards which are a hazard, especially to the children
should they need to use it as an emergency exit.
Enclosed is a copy of the service agreement which covers
all of the above stated concerns. Thank you for your past
support and I would be happy to discuss the details of this
memorandum with you at your convenience.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, we already had some general
discussion about the importance of this legislation. The Senator from
North Carolina has raised a number of issues, many of which are quite
specific, and I am afraid that there is unfortunately an awful lot of
misleading if not inaccurate information given to the Members of the
Senate who may be listening to this debate. So I will attempt now in
response to go point by point to illustrate the inaccuracy of those
comments, and the misleading nature of some of the objections that have
been raised by the Senator from North Carolina.
To start with one point, the Senator from North Carolina has
essentially confused or suggested there is a connection between the
Martin Luther King Center and the King Federal Holiday Commission.
In the first instance, I will point out that the full name, the
accurate name, of the Martin Luther King center is Martin Luther King
Center for Nonviolent Social Change. I think it is important that the
Members be aware that the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent
Social Change is a freestanding, independent entity, separate from the
Commission that is currently at issue with this legislation.
Second, the Senator from North Carolina says the legislation is
seeking a couple million more in terms of its reauthorization. In the
first instance, we are not seeking to authorize indefinitely the King
Federal Holiday Commission. The authorization in this legislation is
for 5 years, and $300,000 a year for the first year of those 5 years,
with a total appropriation of $2 million.
With regard to this, as you are well aware, the process is such that
we have to have legislation authorizing an appropriation first, and
then the actual appropriation has to be appropriated by, among others,
the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Washington. It is
a matter that will come before the Appropriations Committee to
determine how many dollars specifically of the amount that is
authorized will be dedicated to this purpose. That will give not only
the Senators who are members of the Appropriations Committee, but
indeed the Senator from North Carolina, an opportunity to address the
specific issue of how many dollars and what funding will be made
available for the activities of the King Federal Holiday Commission.
In the third instance, with regard to the activity of the Holiday
Commission, I think it is important to focus on the fact that some of
the opposing statements made and cited by the Senator from North
Carolina really do not relate to the activities of this Commission. As
Senator Wofford so eloquently pointed out in his remarks, and as I
pointed out in my remarks earlier, the work of the Commission really is
focused on promoting those values having to do with nonviolence, having
to do with racial harmony, having to do with giving young people some
sense of the history and why nonviolence is important, why racial
harmony and cooperation is important. And some of the quotes,
unfortunately, made by the Senator from North Carolina, I think
obscured the mission of this Commission. It is not a function of just
having the holiday and then forgetting about it and letting it go on a
calendar somewhere, but rather keeping the dream alive, if you will, by
providing a basis and providing a forum for training young people for
the dissemination of information and about the importance of Dr. King's
work.
I daresay there is no one in this Chamber who would deny the
importance of that work. In fact, I have on my desk a collection of
speeches by the late Dr. Martin Luther King. It describes on the cover,
``The Speeches That Changed the World.'' They did change the world and
this country, and they have made it a better country for all Americans.
That is an important thing to communicate as an educative,
socializing tool to young people, many of whom were not alive when Dr.
King was around. In fact, I asked some of our pages whether they
remembered Dr. King, and most of them were born after Dr. King was
assassinated. I think it is important that we communicate to this
generation of young people why nonviolence is important, why
interracial harmony is important, and what are the foundations of the
movement Dr. King started not only here in America, but also for the
rest of the world.
The third point made by the Senator from North Carolina that I think
is important to dispel, again, is the specific point that was made when
he called this legislation a ``mandate.'' Madam President, nothing
could be further from the truth. This is not a mandate. The
dissemination of information is not a mandate; training of young people
is not a mandate; working in the community for positive social values
is not a mandate. No one is being forced to do anything under this
legislation. Indeed, this legislation, by reauthorizing the work of the
Commission, will hopefully provide the basis for increased voluntary
activity in the community and not otherwise.
(Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Another point the Senator from North Carolina made
had to do with the financial and the specific operations activities of
the Commission. He stated that this is not a vote for Dr. King or Dr.
King's holiday, but for a bunch of people who are confused about what
to do with taxpayer money. I daresay that in all of the reviews of the
activities of the Commission, they have received very high marks for
the use of both private and public funds and the operation of the
Commission. The Arthur Andersen audit that was done of the Commission
activity found no intentional wrongdoing or fraudulent practices. It
recommended improvements that could strengthen the practice of the
Commission. But then any audit conducted of any corporation could
certainly find areas for improvement. None of us are perfect; we can
all improve.
This organization has done a salutary job of dispensing the trust and
the confidence of the people--not only of the United States--who
contribute privately to the activities the Commission has given it.
For the record, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from two
Members of Congress, Tom Sawyer and Ralph Regula, who serve as members
of the board, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 6, 1995.
Hon. Harris Wofford,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Dear Senator Wofford: Recently, it has come to our
attention that concerns have been raised about the financial
operations of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday
Commission.
As long-time members of the Commission, we want to put
those unfounded concerns to rest. The Commission, established
in 1984, has operated in a financially sound and responsible
manner. In fact, in 1991, the Commission created an
Operations Committee to review all aspects of the
Commission's internal practices. The Operations Committee was
composed of several distinguished Commissioners, including
the Honorable Judge William Sessions and the Honorable Jack
Kemp.
While the Operations Committee did not find any major flaws
in the way the Commission carried out its responsibilities,
it made several recommendations on how the Commission could
strengthen its management practices and operational
procedures. The Commission also is audited annually by the
Arthur Anderson Company. In 1993, Arthur Anderson made
several recommendations on how the Commission could
strengthen its financial practices.
In response to the constructive suggestions of both the
Operations Committee and Arthur Anderson, the Commission
immediately took steps to streamline its management structure
and ensure appropriate controls over the flow of funds.
We are confident that the King Commission, under the able
leadership of Mrs. Coretta Scott King, has never engaged in
any practice that would suggest the misuse of funds. To the
contrary, the King Commission is an excellent example of an
organization that has carried out its mission admirably with
only a modest amount of federal funds.
We urge the Senate to move expeditiously to reauthorize the
King Commission for five years.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Sawyer,
Member of Congress.
Ralph Regula,
Member of Congress.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. They go on to say, as long-time members of the
Commission:
We want to put those unfounded concerns to rest.
They are referring specifically to financial operations.
The Commission, established in 1984, has operated in a
financially sound and responsible manner. In fact, in 1991,
the Commission created an Operations Committee to review all
aspects of the Commission's internal practices. The
Operations Committee was composed of several distinguished
Commissioners, including the Honorable Judge William Sessions
and the Honorable Jack Kemp.
Finally--and I see my colleague from Pennsylvania, who has some
points and observations to make in this regard--the Senator from North
Carolina said that he thought it was ``shameful'' that we were ``still
looking to the Federal Government for support of the work of this
Commission.'' I think it would be shameful for us to do anything other
than to pass this legislation and reauthorize the work of this
Commission.
The fact is that there are young people--and he mentioned the
students leaving the building--that the work of this Commission has
touched in a positive way. Our own colleague, Bill Bradley, just last
week gave a major address on the cost of violence in this society.
It seems to me that by making a modest investment in the work of the
King Commission, we will be able to save some of these costs. It is a
classic example of a stitch in time saving nine. We can make the step
by authorizing the positive, constructive work of this Commission and
save any costs associated with violence, save any costs associated with
antisocial behavior, save the costs associated with a generation of
young people who may not have access to information regarding the kind
of positive values, about values going to nonviolence, to cooperation,
to conciliation, to mediation, to working together, that the King
Center has spent so much time working to distribute and has done so in
a positive way.
Finally, Madam President, I want to point out that the notion that
there is some trick here, and that the legislation was originally
passed with a commitment that the holiday would pass and that would be
the end of it, is an unfounded and unfair notion about the legislation,
the Commission, and the intent of the sponsors here.
When the legislation creating the King holiday was first passed,
there was in fact a discussion at the time that the Commission was to
expire in 1986. However, from 1986, it has been reauthorized, and the
reason it has been reauthorized has had to do with the efficacy and the
importance of the Commission's work. The fact that it was only
established for a discrete period of time in the first instance by no
means was meant to preclude a continuation of the work should that work
be found to be necessary.
I do not think anyone in this Chamber, indeed in this country, would
say that the work of the King Center is no longer necessary. We still
have the same crises and issues, and we have a need, I believe, to
communicate to our Nation that interracial cooperation is an important
value, that value in humanity is an important value that we should talk
about, disseminate, and educate our young people about. The interests
in preserving and promoting nonviolence as a way to respond to concerns
is an important value that the King Commission has sought to promote,
and it is important for us to continue to promote that.
Therefore, in its wisdom, the Congress has decided to extend the
Commission. It was not in opposition to any commitments or any promises
made at the time it was initially set up. We found that the problem
really does command our continued attention, and it continues to be
important to our country. And because of that continued importance,
Senator Wofford and I, of course, as a cosponsor, introduced this
legislation.
The need is as great now as it has ever been. I daresay it might even
be greater, because those of us who are old enough to be Members of
this Chamber were around to understand and to hear and learn from the
lessons Dr. King sought to bring not only to this country, but to the
world. I daresay that in all the time which has transpired since his
death, there is another generation that needs to learn the same
lessons.
The King Holiday Commission makes it its mission to make certain that
these young people are not denied the benefit of those lessons and the
help that the lessons and the information coming out of that center
about Dr. King's work and his mission can provide to them.
So I submit to the Members of this body that we have a real need to
continue with this legislation, to reauthorize the activities of the
King Federal Holiday Commission, and I therefore encourage my
colleagues to oppose the motion by the Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, the Senator from Illinois has hit the
nail on the head. She has hit the nail twice on the head.
If I can hammer two of those points even further in, the first is the
letter now in the Record, which was just put in the Record by the
Senator from Illinois from the chairman of the subcommittee that has
oversight of the King Commission, Thomas Sawyer, Representative Sawyer,
and a ranking Republican on Appropriations, Ralph Regula. They dealt
with the very points that the Senator from North Carolina was making.
I think it is very important to emphasize that in response to the
very helpful Arthur Andersen latest report in 1993 and the very
specific recommendations as to how the Commission could strengthen its
practice, the Commission took immediate constructive action to
streamline its management structure and its operations committee that
includes the very active participation of the Honorable Judge William
Sessions and Jack Kemp. So we are getting a report from those who are
charged with overseeing the Commission that they are dealing with the
very matters the Senator from North Carolina talked about.
In the same sense, the Senator from North Carolina took us back on
what he called legislative history and gave us a few more of the
debates that were heard in this body before I was here, the last time
in 1989, and restated the arguments made in those debates. That is
exactly what he has done today. He has restated a debate that was
debated thoroughly in 1989 when it was decided to go forth with the
modest support that the Commission has been given. I cannot imagine
that the turn of events in this country suggests that the reasons that
led the overwhelming majority of Members of this body to support by a
vote of 90-7 the work of this Commission, I cannot imagine the events
in this country are saying that the work of this Commission is less
needed.
The Senator from North Carolina said the song remains the same--we
are hearing the same old song. And in a sense he is right, he is
singing the same tune as in 1989, rehashing the same debate.
Well, I only wish, Madam President, that the same old song of Martin
Luther King: black and white together, working together, hand in hand
together, we can overcome, overcome the problems of violence and
overcome the problems in our cities today--I cannot imagine a song I
would rather heard sung again not so much by people marching but by
people working together. And that is the point of this reorganization
which is to give a renewed mandate to the Commission to go beyond what
we have had in the past and to make this a day when we are working,
black and white together, hand in hand together, getting our hands
dirty dealing with the problems of our communities, showing that we can
make a difference. That is the song we need to hear in this country,
and this Senate can strike the right note by the right vote, by not
cutting off all funds for the Martin Luther King Holiday Commission.
What a signal to the world that would be by going on and making this a
day of service, a day on and not a day off.
I yield to the Senator from Illinois if he is ready to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this
legislation that my colleague from Illinois is handling. I agree with
Senator Wofford and Senator Moseley-Braun that to say we are going to
have a Commission but we are not going to fund it would be the worst
kind of message that we could possibly send.
It is a world where we need, as Senator Wofford and my colleague have
said, where we need this message, and all these things tie in together.
What happened in South Africa just a few days ago in part is a
reflection of the leadership of Martin Luther King. Senator Moseley-
Braun and I had the privilege of being down there for that
inauguration. That night, the last ceremony we were at, we joined hands
in singing ``We Shall Overcome,'' the same song we have sung and used
to sing, particularly during the civil rights struggle.
This also happens to be very close to the 40th anniversary of the
Brown decision. The Brown decision did not work in every way like we
had hoped, but Martin Luther King's efforts would not have been
possible without the Brown decision. His success would not have been
possible without that Brown decision.
While the Brown decision has not worked in terms of integrating our
society as fully as many of us expected and hoped at that point, there
is no question we are a better society because of that Brown decision.
I come from southern Illinois. We had segregated schools long after
the Brown decision. Across the State in Missouri we had segregated
schools as late as 1973, 19 years after the Brown decision.
(Mr. WOFFORD assumed the chair.)
Mr. SIMON. I also ask myself how would Martin Luther King like to
have this day observed. I had the privilege of knowing him slightly. In
fact, I met Martin Luther King the same day I met Harris Wofford, now
the Senator from Pennsylvania. I was in my second term as a State
legislator in Illinois taking stands that southern Illinois legislators
were not accustomed to taking and Martin Luther King asked me to come
down and speak at the anniversary of the bus boycott. When I got down
to Montgomery, I met this young fellow, Harris Wofford, who was also
interested in the civil rights struggle.
I remember meeting Martin Luther King. We arranged to meet at the St.
Louis airport. We flew down to Atlanta together and then over to
Montgomery. And when we got to Atlanta, we walked off the plane. There
were these signs: White, colored. And I felt dirty. It was so
offensive.
We have moved away from that. We have not moved as far as we need to
move, but we have moved away.
But I do not think Martin Luther King would want an occasion where we
would just all stand up and praise Martin Luther King.
What we have to do is reach out to one another. I would love to see
maybe the Sunday before Martin Luther King's birthday that all
Americans have churches, synagogues, mosques and temples and civic
organizations and political leaders urging people to reach out to one
another.
How many white families in this Nation have never had an African-
American family over for dinner? How many African-American families
have never had a white family over for dinner? How many Christian
families have never had a Jewish family over for dinner? And the other
way around? Today, we have more Moslems than we have Presbyterians in
this country. Are we reaching out to one another as we should be? We
have more Buddhists than we have Episcopalians. What do I know about
Buddhism? Not as much as I should. We ought to be reaching out so we
understand one another.
I think that is what Martin Luther King stood for, and I would love
to see the Commission in some way move us in that direction.
I see my colleague from Illinois standing up, and she wants to add a
word here, I am sure, and I will yield to her.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank very much the senior
Senator from Illinois. His comments reminded me of one of the most
vivid reasons why this Commission is important and why Senator
Wofford's initiative in this area is so important.
I suppose, because I was engaged in a rather lawyerly kind of
response to the technical issues, I have failed to really talk about
this in another sense, in the sense that my distinguished senior
Senator has raised. I would like to take a moment, if I may, just to
reminisce with you and to share a personal story of my own with regard
to Dr. King.
When Dr. Martin Luther King came to Chicago many years ago-- and I do
not exactly have the actual year it happened--I was no older at the
time than one of the pages might have been, a little bit younger. My
mother suggested that I not go on the march because she was afraid
there might be violence and there might be a problem. Of course, being
a teenager and knowing everything, I went to the march anyway.
So I went to the march. I can remember marching with--actually my
marching partner was a white male who was a veteran of the civil rights
marches in the South. As we marched through this particular area on the
south side, the bottles were flying and the rocks were flying, and my
partner was hit with a rock. He took a handkerchief out and stopped the
blood from flowing. I remember being just absolutely horrified to see
bloodshed when this was just a peaceful demonstration, singing ``We
Shall Overcome,'' marching down the street.
Then we got to the middle of the park and the rocks and bottles
really were flying quickly at this point and really a dangerous
situation. So, in keeping with the response that had been used by the
civil rights activists in the South, they put the women and the
children in the center of the circle and then the men around that and
then the veterans around that.
And I am sure, Senator Wofford, you have probably seen that
formation.
Being both a woman and a child at the time, I was right in the center
and, frankly, within touching distance of Dr. King. The rocks started
coming, and he was actually hit with a flying object at this particular
time.
I can remember being on my knees, with my hands over my head like
this, which was a formation that they told us to assume, on my knees
with my hands over my head and I was really angry. My first reaction
was, I am going to pick up the next rock that comes in here and I am
going to throw it back.
And then I saw from his presence, from his example, in what can only
be described as a personal epiphany for me, that the reason he was not
throwing rocks back and the reason nonviolent protest in behalf of
positive values was so important, that by capturing the moral high
road, by continuing to make a point based on right and making it in a
way that was consistent with those values that say we value each
other's humanity, that violence has no place in that, in that way Dr.
King was winning the battle, even though the rocks were coming at us.
So thousands of us who were on our knees were really in a stronger
position than those faces and voices of hate who were throwing rocks at
us and trying to deny the civil rights that we had come to march in
behalf of.
And I raise all that because, again, the comments of the Senator from
Illinois reminded me of it. Because if there is no other reason for
this Commission, it is that we can provide to young people precisely
that kind of epiphany that says to them that nonviolence is important
because it is predicated on a respect for the humanity of another
person; that coming together in interracial cooperation is important
because, putting aside all of our differences, underneath it all we are
still brothers and sisters to each other. As the Senator from Illinois
mentioned, in South Africa we heard a choir in Pretoria that sang last
week, which was that, although we are different from one another, be
proud of your heritage but know that you are my brother.
And this was coming from an interracial group of South Africans who
are themselves now trying to craft a multiracial, pluralistic society
based, they believe, on what we have here in the United States.
So if we are to maintain our leadership in the world in behalf of
interracial and multiethnic cooperation in behalf of developing a
pluralistic society, then we can do no more, it seems to me, than to
continue to hold up the values that Dr. King espoused in behalf of
those goals.
And those values and the information about those values is precisely
what the Federal Holiday Commission does. That is why, in the final
analysis, it is so important and its work is so important.
I thank my colleague and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence
for this little personal reminiscence. But the words of the Senator
from Illinois reminded me of how important Dr. King's lessons were for
me as a youngster. I was fortunate enough to be there. These
youngsters--he is no longer with us--cannot have the exact same
experiences, but we certainly can make sure that they have the
information and they have the lessons that came out of that noble
period of our history.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I never heard her
relate that story before in the many years that I have known Carol
Moseley-Braun.
She used one other phrase that is important to keep in mind--the
moral high ground. That is what we have to try to achieve, however
imperfectly we achieve it.
I think it is worth reminding ourselves also, as we talk about Martin
Luther King, his last effort was in behalf of custodians--janitors, if
you will--in Memphis, TN.
We have a country today where 23 percent of the children live in
poverty. There is no other Western industrialized country that has
anything like that. I am just certain, if Martin Luther King were alive
today, he would say this good, great country can do better than that.
That is also part of the moral high ground that we ought to be
sensitizing ourselves to.
I thank my colleague from Illinois and Senator Wofford for their
leadership.
I see Senator Feinstein is going to say a few words here.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator
Simon, and yourself, Mr. President, in putting forward H.R. 1933.
Mr. President, let me speak first as a Californian in support of this
legislation. I believe that if you ask people in California what two
major issues they care most about, one would be the economy and the
second would be reducing violence in our society.
There is no Federal effort to my knowledge that speaks more
eloquently to the problem of violence in our society than does the King
Holiday Commission. Not to extend its life at a time when the real need
to reduce violence in America is on everyone's mind would be
incomprehensible to me.
Mr. President, it is appropriate that you are in the chair during
this debate. You were widely quoted last January in a Washington Post
editorial entitled ``The King Holiday, 10 Years Later,'' which spoke
highly of what you and Senator Moseley-Braun are trying to accomplish
here. You suggested, simply and eloquently, that Dr. King's birthday be
observed in the future as a ``day on,'' not merely a day off. Nothing
could be more fitting.
If I may, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me tell you how we mark this
holiday in my home city of San Francisco as a day on, not a day off.
We have in our city a very special man. His name is Dr. Cecil
Williams, reverend to the Glide Memorial United Methodist Church. This
is a huge church with a congregation of more than 3,000 people. People
come into the Tenderloin of San Francisco from all over the Bay Area
every Sunday to celebrate nonviolence, to celebrate the rehabilitation
of the human soul. It is a church that truly ministers to the neediest
among us, those who are down and out, those who have problems with drug
addiction, who are homeless, who have been violent. It is a ``turn-
around'' church.
Reverend Williams is the chairman of the Martin Luther King Holiday
observance. On that day, a ``Freedom Train'' brings people from all
over northern California into San Francisco. They march from the train
station, through downtown, and on to the Civic Auditorium where they
hear people from all walks of life speak about the message that Martin
Luther King, Jr., tried to carry to this world, the message of
nonviolence.
As Dr. King said--and this is often quoted on those birthday
celebrations:
Peace is not merely the absence of some negative force, it
is the presence of a positive force. True peace is not merely
the absence of tension, but is the presence of justice and
brotherhood.
Can anybody say that justice and brotherhood abound today in this
land? I think not. Can anyone reasonably or thoughtfully say that now
is the time to end this Commission? I think not.
This Commission works with just two paid staffers. The Commission has
worked at very modest cost for the past five years and, I am confident,
will continue to do so for 5 more years when this bill is approved. It
can do so much and deserves our support.
I hope for a new thrust against violence in our society. Dr. King
also said, ``violence is the voice of the unheard.'' I think all of us
here would agree that voice has grown louder in the 30 years since he
spoke that truth. More than 100,000 schoolchildren are estimated to
take guns to school every day. Another 160,000 stay at home because
they are afraid of the 100,000 who take guns to school every day.
I hope, and would sound as a mission for it in the future, that this
Commission takes up this cause with renewed vigor--that it spread Dr.
King's message of nonviolence from school to school, from State to
State, all across this Nation. It is time we reach out to this
generation, and the next, to show them that nonviolence can be a
powerful weapon, too. As Dr. King called it, ``a sword that heals.''
The King Holiday Commission has already enlisted over 27,000 children
in its Youth Against Violence Campaign. It has gone school to school
and child to child to recruit them in the battle against violence. The
Commission also has convinced 4 million more, 4 million additional
youngsters, to commit themselves to a life of nonviolence. That is the
kind of work that can make a difference: child to child, school to
school, State to State. Every youngster who says ``I will not be a part
of violence in this Nation'' makes a difference.
When the King Holiday Commission has completed the five years of new
work authorized and supported by this legislation, I hope that there
will be 4 million more youngsters who have said that they too will not
be a part of violence in this Nation. Think of the difference that will
make.
Many of the people in my State believe that California is going in
the wrong direction, primarily because of violence in our society. I am
confident that the King Holiday Commission can help ease the fears of
people in my State and across the Nation by helping to break the cycle
of violence that has already claimed far too many of our children.
If anyone can succeed in this task, it is Coretta Scott King, whom I
know well. I know her personally and as a public figure. I know, most
of all, her total dedication to sustaining and teaching the ideals of
Martin Luther King, Jr. There can be no better tribute to Dr. King, and
no higher aim of the King Holiday Commission, than sharing his ideals
with the children of America.
I am truly amazed that there are voices in this Senate who say, ``Let
us end this Commission. We do not have to work toward nonviolence in
our society. This Commission should not be reconstituted. This
Commission should not continue to be funded.'' I feel exactly the
opposite.
I stand today in support of your efforts, Mr. President, and those of
my friend and colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, to see that the King
Holiday Commission's critical work can and will be continued at this
critical time.
If there is to be a continuing mission for this Commission, let it be
the education of our children in Dr. King's message of nonviolence. If
the Commission is to pursue any goal over the next 5 years, let it be
the recruitment of 4 million more youngsters who are willing to say
that violence is not the way. If there is a day for Senators to stand
and be counted in support of the King Holiday Commission and the
rededication of Dr. King's memorial day, let it be this one. And, if
there is to be a day in tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--as I
hope and trust there will always be--let it be, as you have said, Mr.
President, a day ``on,'' not merely a ``day off.''
I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank Senator Moseley-Braun for
bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate. I want you to know that
our hearts and our voices are with you.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1994]
The King Holiday, 10 Years Later
America in 1994 is not the same place Sen. Harris Wofford
described at the beginning of his constructive column on
yesterday's op-ed page. The southern laws which sanctioned a
dual society, the racially discriminatory places of public
accommodation, the state-sponsored voting rights barriers--
they've all been swept away. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.,
whose birthday is honored today, and the powerful civil
rights movement he led deserve much of the credit for that
transformation.
Twenty-five years after his death, and a decade after the
inauguration of the holiday in his name, it is said that if
Dr. King could witness the carnage that is taking place on
American streets today, he would be devastated. That is
undoubtedly true. But we don't believe his sadness would be
confined to the presence of violence. Neither do we believe
that crime would be the only problem he would expect this
country to be grappling with today.
Appearing at the Mason Temple Church where Dr. King spoke
in Memphis the night before he was killed, President Clinton
told an audience made up largely of black ministers that
``the freedom to die before you're a teenager is not what
Martin Luther King lived and died for.'' Mr. Clinton
speculated that if Dr. King witnessed the wave of crime
sweeping the country today, he would say, ``I did not live
and die to see the American family destroyed.'' We can't know
if that is what Dr. King would say. But we do believe, based
on what Dr. King was preaching about the night before his
death, that his concern about conditions in today's Memphis
as well as in other American communities would include street
violence, and more.
It's not likely that Dr. King, driving in from the airport
to Mason Temple, would have ignored the urban decay, the
boarded and dilapidated houses, the homelessness, the closed
shops in downtown Memphis--all stark evidence of what he
called on his last night the ``long years of poverty, their
long years of hurt and neglect.'' Nor would Dr. King miss the
reality in today's America of what he referred to in Memphis
25 years ago as ``God's children here suffering, sometimes
going hungry, going through dark and dreary nights wondering
how this thing is going to come out.'' It was, he said, ``the
issue,'' adding: ``And we've got to say to the nation: We
know it's coming out.''
Sen. Wofford and Rep. John Lewis, who share Dr. king's
outlook all these years later, have sponsored legislation
aimed at making the King holiday more than another day off
for shopping or resting. They would have the federal holiday
become an active day of community service and nonviolent
action--the true legacy of Dr. King's life. That last night
in Memphis, the man we honor today told the story of the good
Samaritan, but in his own way. He said that maybe the man who
fell among thieves was left behind by the two upstanding
passers-by, because they were too busy. Or he said maybe
``they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from
the causal root, rather than to get bogged down with an
individual.'' Or maybe, said Dr. King, they were afraid; they
thought the injured man on the ground was merely faking and
would harm them. The question of one passer-by: ``If I stop
to help this man, what will happen to me?'' was the wrong one
to ask, he said. The good Samaritan, the one who got down
from his beast and gave assistance, asked himself: ``If I do
not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'' That
was the right one, Dr. King said. The good Samaritan
``decided not to be compassionate by proxy,'' preached Dr.
King. Sen. Wofford and Rep. Lewis are right to believe that
that is the way the King holiday should be observed.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I am going back and forth to meetings
like a tennis ball, as most Senators are, I believe, most of the time,
but I did manage, while doing a little work in my office, and meeting
with some foreign dignitaries, to hear some criticism of my amendment.
For example--well, let me go back. I wondered which amendment they
were talking about, including, if you will forgive me, ma'am, the
distinguished Senator from California. I have no argument with the
Commission. My problem is somewhere, sometime we have to get a handle
on how much of the people's money we are going to spend and for what
purposes. My amendment does not eliminate the Commission, it returns it
to its original condition as a privately funded group, with officials
appointed by the Government.
Questions were raised that had no relevance to the amendment, either
one of them. Now, I think it was the Senator from Illinois who said
that I had said that the King Commission was part and parcel of the
King Center. I said no such thing. I know better than that.
What I did say was that the King Commission and the King Center share
many of the same officers and directors. As a matter of fact, the King
Commission, if I recall correctly, has only two employees on its
payroll, the rest are ``on loan'' from Uncle Sam.
The King Commission has only 2 employees, but there are also 11 full-
time Federal employees assigned to the Commission. Now, the Center and
the Commission share many of the same officials, and what I did ask was
why should we pay for the King Commission when the King Center could
easily come up with $2 million. The King Center receives about $20
million per year in voluntary contributions.
As I said, I may be old fashioned, but I think the folks that run the
King Center could come up with another $2 million for 5 years to fund
the Holiday Commission as well. As a matter of fact, the Commission
raised its funding privately in 1985, did they not, I would ask the
manager of the bill?
They raised the money privately in 1985, is that right?
Mr. WOFFORD. The King Center always raises its money privately.
Mr. HELMS. Did the Commission, not the King Center, raise its own
funds in 1985?
Mr. WOFFORD. It did.
Mr. HELMS. Did it raise them in 1986?
Mr. WOFFORD. Yes.
Mr. HELMS. Did it raise them in 1987?
Is the answer in the affirmative?
Mr. WOFFORD. I believe the action--the last time this Senate voted on
the question of ceasing the funding for the Commission was in 1989,
when a similar motion was defeated 86 to 11.
Mr. HELMS. I do not believe I inquired about that, but that is a
fact, and it is probably going to happen again. But it does not make it
right, I say to the Senator. It needs to be debated. It needs to be
analyzed. I did not say that this was a permanent extension of the
Commission. I said that the Moseley-Braun version of the bill, which is
not before the Senate, does continue it indefinitely. Now, the House
bill, which is before us, stipulates an extension of 5 years--another 5
years, I might add.
So 95 percent of what has been said in my absence--I have tried to
hear what I could of it, and I have caught part of it in my office and
then I have checked with people who have taken notes for me--about 95
percent was just as I predicted when I made my opening remarks; that
there would be eloquent speeches not relevant to the bill nor relevant
to either of the two Helms amendments.
But that is the way we do things around here. We do not debate the
specific issue at hand. We make political speeches appealing to the
people we want to appeal to and that sort of thing. And I have to say
it was very appealing to hear about people's childhoods and all the
rest of it. I could probably raise some tears to people's eyes were I
to relate some aspects of my childhood during the Depression but that
is not relevant.
What I am talking about is spending the taxpayers' money on the
commitment that has been made by individuals in the leadership of this
Senate, year after year, that the funds will end in 5 years, and here
we are proposing 5 more years.
Now, that is what is relevant, not whether somebody is in favor of
not having violence. We are all not in favor of having violence. We
have it in North Carolina, too. Thank the Lord we do not have as much
as California. And you need to do something about that, Senator
Feinstein. And I am not sure that the King Center or the King
Commission will do very much about the problems in California or North
Carolina.
Now, the Senators from Illinois and Pennsylvania noted that those who
spoke on this issue in 1984, 1986, and 1989 never said that this would
be a temporary, privately funded Commission.
Now, I did not hear them say that, but it was reported to me that
that is what they said. Well, they better tell that to Sam Nunn. And
they had better tell it to Bob Dole and others who the Congressional
Record shows felt in 1984, 1986, and 1989 that the King Commission
would end and that it would not go on forever as the Moseley-Braun
bill, introduced last year, planned.
Now, when this Commission was reauthorized in 1986 and 1989, the
Senators in the leadership positions got on this floor and told each
other and told the Senate--and it is in the Record--each time that this
was going to be the end of the Commission and its Federal funding.
Now, the point is that the Commission can raise funds privately and
it ought to do so. But, no, once Uncle Sugar got into the business of
giving them the money, they did not want to have to raise private funds
anymore.
Now, someone needs to explain to me why we do not go back to the old
system and let them raise money.
Now, there are 11 permanent Federal employees making $75,000, $80,000
a year--let me see the book. Why not go down the list?
The Commission's staff includes--I have already referred to him--
Lloyd Davis, Executive Director. He is on loan from the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development; Mary Coleman, Administrative
Assistant of the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice; somebody named
Fisher, administrative assistant, of the Food and Nutrition Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, full-time; Edison Horne, Director
of Law Enforcement Involvement Programs, FBI, full-time; Lisa Irby, an
accountant with the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, of course, full-time; and so on.
I ask unanimous consent that the rest of these names be printed in
the Record at this point rather than take up the time of the Senate.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Gerrie Maccannon, Executive Officer (Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).
Sheila Ricks, Special Events Coordinator (Census Bureau,
U.S. Department of Commerce).
Juanita Sims, Finance Intern (Internal Revenue Service,
U.S. Department of the Treasury).
Faye P. Singh, Youth Assembly Coordinator (Fort Valley
College [Georgia], Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture).
Dr. Joel Soobitsky, National Youth Program Coordinator
(Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Katie Taylor, Secretary (Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior).
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Now, Madam President, we have an interesting parliamentary situation,
and I agreed to it this past Friday, hoping to expedite the situation
as a matter of convenience to Senators. I agreed to a then-proposed
unanimous consent agreement that all amendments would be offered and
debated today and voted on tomorrow.
I ask the Chair, or the Parliamentarian through the Chair, if I am
not correct about that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. That is what the
agreement provides.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Parliamentarian.
Now, I am going to ask unanimous consent to lay aside the Helms
first-degree amendment and the second-degree amendment, of course, so
that a third amendment can be offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WOFFORD. I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to the request?
Mr. WOFFORD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the two amendments are set
aside.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the able Senator. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 1740
(Purpose: To end the practice of having Federal civil servants detailed
to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission for years on
end)
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 1740.
The amendment follows:
On page 2, strike lines 20 through 24 and insert the
following:
(3) in section 6--
(A) in subsection (a) by striking ``maximum rate of pay
payable for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section
5332'' and inserting ``rate of pay for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1) by adding the following at the
end: ``A person who has been detailed under the preceding
sentence for as many as 365 days (continuously or
intermittently) may not subsequently be detailed to the
Commission.''.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the clerk.
Madam President, further working our way along in this complicated
fix we are in because of the unanimous-consent agreement, I think under
the rules, or certainly under practice and precedent, it is possible
that the manager of the bill and the Senator from North Carolina can
obtain the yeas and nays. We can get the yeas and nays at some time. I
would like to get that out of the way.
So I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas
and nays on all three of the Helms amendments thus far offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank my colleague. I do not always agree with him, but
I like him.
I will not comment on my friend from California. But she knows how
kindly I think of her.
This amendment is simple. What it proposes to do is prohibit any
official, officer, or civil servant of the U.S. Government--that is,
Federal bureaucrat--from serving on loan to the King Holiday Commission
for more than 1 year. After 1 year employees on loan to the Commission
must go back to their regular jobs.
It does not--let me emphasize, not--prohibit Federal agencies from
lending employees to this Commission. It simply ensures that they will
promptly return to the job which the taxpayers expect them to do. I
think this is a fair request.
Madam President, even before the King Commission began receiving
Federal funds up front in 1989, the taxpayers were footing a pretty
hefty bill for its operations. According to the King Holiday
Commission's 1988 annual report:
All of the Commission's staff, except for the Executive
Director, were provided on a nonreimbursable basis by Federal
agencies * * *
That is back-door financing.
Most Senators probably do not know that the salaries of the majority
of the employees of the King Commission are paid for by the American
taxpayer. Let me read down the list of some of the staff and the
departments providing the King Commission with their services, as
listed in the Commission's 1993 annual report. I have read some of them
before but let's review it again.
Lloyd Davis, Executive Director--HUD.
Mary Coleman, administrative assistant--FBI.
Vash Fisher, administrative assistant--Agriculture.
Ed Horne, law programs--FBI.
Lisa Irby, accountant--IRS.
The list also includes officers from the Public Health Service, the
Census Bureau, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Agriculture
Extension Service.
Let me say, before somebody raises a question, that I know that it is
not unusual for Federal agencies to loan other agencies personnel for a
short period of time. The practice is common in the Armed Forces and in
Federal law enforcement. What makes the King Commission situation so
extraordinary is that some of the officials on loan to the Commission
have become permanent fixtures within this organization.
Surely the Senate is going to accede to my suggestion that we stop
that practice and limit the loan to 1 year. It is going to be
interesting to see how the votes go on this.
Let us take a look again at the Executive Director of the King
Commission, Mr. Lloyd Davis. Mr. Davis is an employee of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. I do not know what duties Mr. Davis
performed at HUD and for all I know he did a good job there and does a
good job with the King Commission, although he is prominently mentioned
in the Arthur Andersen 1992 audit of the financial problems that the
King Commission has experienced during its existence.
So something is amiss. Whether it is Mr. Davis' fault, I do not know.
I do not know how many hours a day he spends, if any, at the
Commission. I do not know whether he flies first class when he travels
on the King Commission's airline ticket. But Mr. Davis, as I have said
two or three times, has been ``on loan'' to the King Commission since
the time of the creation of the King Commission in 1984.
Now, I have run a department of a major city newspaper, a news
operation, and a television station. I have been executive vice
president of a broadcasting company. And if I had ``loaned'' employees
from another section of my company for over 10 years, I think the board
of directors would have said, ``Mr. Helms, come in. We need to talk to
you a little bit.'' I would consider that individual to be a permanent
part of my staff. But Mr. Davis is not a permanent part of the King
Commission, at least not insofar as the records are concerned. He may
have that understanding with the King Commission. There is nothing in
writing. But he is still being paid by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and nobody figures that salary in.
Mr. Davis, according to the records that we have checked very
carefully, is paid by the taxpayers more than $85,000 a year, not
including any allowances that the Government gives him to live in
Atlanta while he is working for the Commission.
I do not mind the manager of the bill spicing up the oratory about
how much he loves freedom and how much he loves children, and all the
rest of it. Of course, the rest of us do, too. Just tell me about Mr.
Lloyd Davis. I want the manager of the bill to tell the Senate how a
man could make $85,000 a year from an agency at which he has not worked
for more than 10 years.
Mr. Davis is not the only King Commission employee who appears to
have taken permanent leave from his regular Federal Government job.
Another official, for example--and I could go on a long time talking
about these various employees--is a fellow named Ed Horne, who
coordinates the King Commission activities with the law enforcement
agencies. Mr. Horne is an employee of the FBI--at least he is listed as
an employee of the FBI. But as far as I can tell, based on the record,
he has not worked for the FBI in at least 4 years, and probably longer
than that.
I cannot imagine that the FBI has so little to do that it can
reasonably afford to send one of its agents, or more than one of its
agents, on permanent ``loan'' to anybody, including the Martin Luther
King Holiday Commission. The pattern is the same in several respects
involving several King Commission staffers. Once they go on ``loan'' to
the King Commission, they are reborn; they stay there. I think, as a
matter of policy, the Senate ought to take some step regarding that.
Madam President, I guess in a week's time I meet with 200 or more
people, just one after another, and I am glad to see them all. But a
surprising percentage of the people who come to me concerned about
their country, or concerned about their Government, ask me, ``How did
we get into this $4.5 trillion debt situation?'' The total is actually
more than $4.5 trillion, but in round numbers, it is about $4.5
trillion of debt which has been run up by the Congress of the United
States.
I hear political statements on this floor that it is ``Reagan's debt
or ``Bush's debt.'' Let me tell you one thing. Unless they changed the
Constitution when I was not looking, no money, not one thin dime, could
be spent for any reason that has not first been authorized and
appropriated by the Congress of the United States. So that ``dead cat''
lying at our door is our cat; it is not Reagan's, or Carter's, or
Bush's, or Clinton's. The Congress of the United States is responsible
for that $4.5 trillion debt piled on the backs of young people, like
the pages sitting on either side of the dais.
It is time to say what Senators have been saying every time this
matter has come up: ``Well, this is the last time; there will not be
any funding after this.'' Sam Nunn said it, Bob Dole said it, and Terry
Sanford said it. I guess we will hear that today. But it has not been
the last time yet, and I hope it will be one of these days.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. WOFFORD. How much time is there, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 60 minutes
available on this amendment.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, that is on the new amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. WOFFORD. How much time is there on the two amendments that were
laid aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 47 minutes remaining.
On the ones laid aside, on the second-degree amendment, the Senator
from Pennsylvania controls 12 minutes and the Senator from North
Carolina controls 19 minutes.
On the first-degree amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania controls
39 minutes and the Senator from North Carolina controls 7 minutes.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, before responding to the latest facts
and/or reports from the Senator from North Carolina, let me give just a
little background now on the history of this Commission, which other
Senators may not be as familiar with as I am.
When it was created in 1984, the King Commission established a
501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, able to solicit funds in the private
sector. It was competing against already established organizations,
such as the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change in
Atlanta--the Center. Then, in the inaugural observance of the national
holiday, there was a great deal of excitement and anticipation as to
what this holiday might be and what could be done with special funds.
Senator Dole, then the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, and Edward
Jefferson, president of the DuPont Co., helped to raise private funds
for the observance of that first King Federal holiday on January 20,
1986. The aim was to raise at least $2 million. The net result was that
$300,000 was raised under favorable conditions, the most favorable
conditions the Commission has experienced, because it was the beginning
of the holiday, the birth of the holiday. The enthusiasm and interest
in the first King holiday observance carried over. But in recent years
it has declined, and from 1990, it has never exceeded $100,000 a year.
The lowest level of contributions came in 1993 when the Commission
raised $34,000.
The arguments that the senior Senator from Illinois, the junior
Senator from Illinois, the Senator from California, and I have made as
to the timing of this reauthorization and the needs of our Nation for
this work to be continued are all, it seems to me, very compelling in
the light of the financial history as to whether that worked for a
national holiday--the first such national holiday honoring a private
citizen, as the Senator from North Carolina has stressed. But the real
question is whether this is the time to cut out or cut back and to
cripple our very modest Federal effort, and it seems to me that the
argument for that, knowing the facts of life in our country, is so hard
to make.
At this point, I want to note that we have a Labor Day in this
country; we have a Veterans Day in this country; and we recently
celebrated the 500th anniversary of Columbus discovering America. I
think we would find, if we did research on that, that very substantial
resources by the Labor Department in connection with Labor Day, and the
Veterans Administration for Veterans Day, and by the Christopher
Columbus Commission, is attributed to and focused on making those big
and successful holidays. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina
himself supported a Bicentennial Commission and its funding.
This is a new and noble venture indeed. The Congress of the United
States decided to make it so. This is a time to continue it and to give
it a renewed mandate that is more practical, more important, and more
pertinent, while building on their previous successes.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The time will be equally divided on the two sides on the pending
amendment.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe this amendment has been checked
with all sides. I ask that the pending amendment and the other two--all
three of the amendments--be laid aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1741
(Purpose: To stop the use of taxpayers' funds by the Commission to pay
for first-class air travel or hotel accommodations)
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for it to be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 1741.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 3, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
On page 3, between lines 12 and 13 insert the following:
(7) by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 10. None of the funds appropriated or donated to the
Commission may be used for the purpose of purchasing first
class air travel or first class hotel accommodations.''.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, this amendment is short, it is simple and
it is one that the Senate should easily support. This amendment
precludes any official of the King Commission from using first class
airline flights or first class hotel accommodations with Federal funds.
We have just had a lengthy debate in the Senate over what gifts and
perks are proper for Senators to accept. No public official can
ethically enjoy such luxuries as first class accommodations on the
public tab. This amendment ensures that staff and directors of
commissions--all commissions--abide by the same rules, the public
expects all public officials to abide by.
No individual has a right to live in the lap of luxury at the
taxpayers expense.
I believe this amendment will be accepted.
Mr. WOFFORD. We accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1741) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOFFORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe it would be in order to have a
short quorum call. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will be tolled on
both sides. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1740, As Modified
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, this has been discussed with the
distinguished manager of the bill and our respective staffs.
I ask unanimous consent that the Helms amendment affecting Federal
employees on loan to the King Commission be modified so as to make
certain and to allow them 1 year to complete their duties with the King
Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. WOFFORD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be incorporated into the
amendment.
The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
On page 2, strike lines 20 through 24 and insert the
following:
(3) in section 6--
(A) in subsection (a) by striking ``maximum rate of pay
payable for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section
5332'' and inserting ``rate of pay for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1) by adding the following at the
end: ``A person who has been detailed under the preceding
sentence for as many as 365 days (continuously or
intermittently) may not subsequently be detailed to the
Commission.''.
(C) All federal employees on loan to the King Commission on
the day of enactment of this Act may remain detailed to the
Martin Luther King Holiday Commission for not more than 365
days.''
Mr. HELMS. Again, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1742 and 1743, En Bloc
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have two amendments prepared by the
distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. They have been checked
and cleared on both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that they be approved en bloc, and the motion
to reconsider en bloc and the tabling of the motion to reconsider en
bloc.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, we have consulted with Senator Brown
and his staff, and we think these are improving amendments. We accept
them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is granted.
The amendments were agreed to as follows:
Amendment No. 1742
(Purpose: To improve the Commission's accounting procedures)
Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 1742 for Mr. Brown.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 10. ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES.
``The Commission shall follow a comprehensive basis of
accounting, as defined by the Comptroller General in B-
255473. The Commission shall establish an accounting system
for review by the Comptroller General under section 3512 of
title 31, United States Code. The Comptroller General is
authorized to review and audit the Commission, its programs,
activities, operations, and financial transactions. The
Comptroller General, and his agents, shall have access to all
records, files, documents, and papers of the Commission, as
necessary, to accomplish such audits.''.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the King Commission may receive its own
appropriations directly, it may receive private donations, and it may
receive grants from a government corporation which has its own
appropriations. The Commission is responsible for implementing the
policies and organizing the activities. The Commission is responsible
for raising and dispensing other funds. This organization
understandably can get confusing.
As I understand it, the Commission found the bookkeeping to be
complex enough to ask Arthur Anderson to conduct an audit of the
corporation. The Commission, however, is not regularly audited. While
Federal agencies are required to follow generally accepted accounting
procedures, the Commission is not technically a Federal agency. As a
consequence, the Commission can follow any or no accounting standards.
To date, I believe they have followed good accounting standards.
However, the Commission should be required to follow the same rules as
other Federal commissions and agencies.
This amendment would do just that: require the Commission to follow
generally accepted accounting standards.
This amendment would also authorize the GAO to conduct a review and
audit of the programs and accounting of the Commission. This simply
would enable GAO to take a look at the accounting as it may do for
other Federal agencies.
Madam President, this amendment does not burden this Commission with
unusual demands. Instead, it simply requires that the Commission lives
under the same accounting rules of any other Federal body.
amendment no. 1743
(Purpose: To modify the Commission report requirements)
Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 1743 for Mr. Brown.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, strike lines 8 through 10 and insert the
following:
(5) by amending section 8 to read as follows:
``SEC. 8. COMMISSION REPORT.
``(a) In General.--Not later than April 20 of each year,
the Commission shall submit a report to the President and the
Congress concerning its activities under this Act or under
the National and Community Service Act of 1990.
``(b) Analysis Required.--The Commission shall include in
its annual report--
``(1) a detailed description of all activities undertaken
by the Commission;
``(2) an analysis of the spending practices of the
Commission indicating how much of the funds of the Commission
are dedicated to salaries, travel expenses, and other
overhead costs and how much are dedicated to the stated goals
of the Commission; and
``(3) a detailed description of any grants made by the
Corporation for National and Community Service with the
consultation of the Commission.''.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I offer this amendment simply to make
sure Congress is informed about the Commission it creates. This
amendment would require the Commission to report to Congress and the
President about the activities and programs the Commission undertakes.
The Commission is currently required to submit an annual report to
the President and the Congress. There is no direction in the law
concerning the contents of this report. This amendment would direct the
Commission to include a few things in the report that are important.
First, the Commission would be required to provide a detailed
description of all its activities.
Second, the Commission would be required to explain the spending
practices of the Commission with an eye toward how much is spent on
overhead and how much is spent on reaching the goals of the Commission.
This is similar to the service available for any charity which provides
potential donors with information concerning how much is spent on
overhead and how much reaches the desired goal.
Third, the Commission would be required to detail how much money the
Commission receives from the corporation under the National and
Community Service Act of 1990. The corporation receives its own
appropriations and is authorized under this bill to make grants to the
Commission. I think it is important for Congress, the President and
taxpayers to know how much money is dedicated to this Government
program from all areas, not just the direct appropriation. It would be
helpful to know not only how much money is appropriated to the
Commission and but also how much of the funds appropriated to the
corporation actually ends up with the Commission.
Vote on Amendment 1739
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, as I understand it, the distinguished
manager of the bill is willing to accept the second-degree Helms
amendment.
Mr. WOFFORD. That is correct.
Mr. HELMS. Do you want to put that to a vote, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has requested a vote on the
second-degree amendment No. 1739.
Mr. HELMS. Right. I urge its approval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have been advised that the yeas and nays
will have to be vitiated.
Mr. HELMS. That is correct. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays on this amendment alone be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1739) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOFFORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, that leaves only the Helms underlying
amendment, and the yeas and nays have been ordered on that amendment as
well; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HELMS. And we have agreed there will be no attempt to second
degree that amendment. We will have a rollcall vote on that tomorrow.
Does the distinguished manager of the bill remember what time that vote
will be scheduled?
This amendment will be on the question of deleting Federal funding
for the King Commission, followed by a vote on limiting the amount of
time--Madam President, I need to check with the Parliamentarian. I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I understand that agreement has been reached on amendment
No. 1740. I inquire of the Chair, is that correct?
Mr. WOFFORD. That is the amendment on limiting the detail?
Mr. HELMS. That is correct.
Mr. WOFFORD. That is correct.
Mr. HELMS. I just suggest that the Chair put that to a vote. I urge
its approval.
Mr. WOFFORD. I move to vitiate----
Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Martin
Luther King Holiday and Service Act of 1994.
This legislation will reauthorize the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Holiday Commission for 5 years. In addition, it will authorize the
Corporation for National and Community Service to make grants for
community service opportunities in conjunction with the holiday.
We can all be proud of what the Commission has accomplished since it
was created in 1984. Today all 50 States observe the King holiday. But
much more than being about 1 day of observance, the Commission sponsors
activities throughout the year that carry on Dr. King's labor for peace
and reconciliation.
With very limited resources, the Commission has promoted education
for our kids about alternatives to violence and crime. The Commission
has enlisted 4 million young Americans to sign a pledge of commitment
to nonviolence and has involved over 27,000 young people in Youth
Against Violence symposiums.
It is an appropriate extension of the Commission`s mission to promote
community service projects surrounding the holiday that reflect Dr.
King's life and legacy. As America struggles to recapture the hearts
and minds of our young people, the Commission can send an important
message: There is power in nonviolence, and strength in service.
I can think of no more fitting tribute to Dr. King.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S.
774, the King Holiday and Service Act of 1994. This act would support
the planning and performance of national service opportunities in
conjunction with the Federal legal holiday honoring the birthday of
Martin Luther King, Jr. I can think of no more appropriate tribute to
Dr. King than to inspire more voluntary work to rebuild our
communities.
The late Dr. King has properly been regarded as a national treasure--
inspiring understanding among racial and ethnic groups, nonviolent
conflict resolution, equal opportunities, and social justice. He has
inspired the pursuit of racial and ethnic equality not only in America,
but also around the world.
The Commission to assist in the observance of the Federal legal
holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., established on August 27,
1984, was created to ensure the annual recognition of Dr. King's
incredible work. Because of this commission's success, a Federal legal
holiday has been created to honor Dr. King. The Commission's initial
goal has been reached. However, now is the time to move even further.
We must not only recognize Dr. King's dream, but also honor it by
encouraging others to follow his example. It would seem inappropriate
to only create a holiday to celebrate the life of a man of action.
Instead, we should utilize Dr. King's accomplishments to inspire
action, to give knowledge, and to form bonds among our many
communities. This is the true spirit of Dr. King.
The cost of the Commission is modest, particularly when one views
this as what it is--an investment in our future. Through this
investment in service, we would multiply the kind of voluntary action
Dr. King has already inspired. Through this investment in peace, we
would save in the cost of violence, not only monetarily, but also in
human suffering. Never before has it been more important for our young
people to hear Dr. King's words. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
support the King Holiday and Service Act of 1994 so that we may
continue the honored legacy of Dr. King.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are
vitiated. All time is yielded back, and the question is on agreeing to
the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 1740), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. It won by two to nothing.
I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOFFORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Now, if the Chair will tell us what the procedure will be
tomorrow afternoon at 2:30, I would appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 1738, as
amended. That is a first-degree amendment, as amended.
Mr. HELMS. The yeas and nays have been ordered on that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. It is my
understanding the vote will occur at about 2:30 tomorrow.
Mr. HELMS. Just for the record, to be clear, that amendment is on the
funding question relating to the King Commission?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WOFFORD. And the yeas and nays, have they been requested on----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. WOFFORD. Final passage?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested on
final passage.
Mr. WOFFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Now, on my part, I yield back all remaining time allocated
to me this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. There still will be 10 minutes tomorrow prior to the vote;
is that correct?
Mr. WOFFORD. The proposal, I understood, was to be 15 minutes to be
shared by the Senator, and the Senator from Illinois, and myself.
Mr. HELMS. All time has been yielded back, and I ask to make sure
that we are through here this afternoon?
Mr. WOFFORD. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has yielded
back time. The Senator from Pennsylvania has not yet done so.
Mr. WOFFORD. If the Presiding Officer agrees to yielding back of
time, all remaining time will be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers have that prerogative.
Without objection, time is yielded back on both sides of the debate.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, let me thank the Chair and all others who
have participated in this debate, particularly my friend from
Pennsylvania. He is a gentleman, and I enjoy working with him.
Mr. WOFFORD. I enjoyed working with the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator very much.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The absence of a quorum has been
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________