[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 6003-6167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
106
VOLUME 147--PART 5
[[Page S6003]]
[[Page S6004]]
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.
[[Page 6003]]
SENATE--Tuesday, April 24, 2001
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Lincoln Chafee, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
God of all nations, Father of every tribe, color and tongue of
humankind, You have created us to live at peace with one another in
Your family. You have revealed to us Your desire that all Your children
should be free to worship You. Here in America, freedom of religion is
a basic fabric of our life. Sadly, this freedom is not enjoyed in so
many places in our world. We are grieved by the shocking accounts of
religious persecution. Prejudice expressed in hostility and then in
hatred and violence exists throughout the world. As we think of the
pain and suffering inflicted on Christians because of their faith, we
also are reminded of all forms of intolerance over religion in the
world today. We remember the suffering of the Jews in this century.
Forgive any prejudice in our own hearts and purge from us any vestige
of imperious judgmentalism of people whose expression of faith in You
differs from our own. We pray for tolerance in the human family. And
may it begin in each of us. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Lincoln Chafee led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Lincoln Chafee, a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Strom Thurmond,
President pro tempore.
Mr. CHAFEE thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The acting majority leader.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
begin consideration of Calendar No. 23, S. 1, the education bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I was here
yesterday and again today. I am the ranking member of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. We have reported legislation out of the
subcommittee--by the way, the Presiding Officer is the Chair of that
subcommittee--we reported out of that subcommittee more than a month
ago brownfields legislation. This is legislation that affects 500,000
sites.
I object, and I will at the appropriate time this morning talk more
about what I think is so wrong about our inaction in the Senate today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period for morning
business until 12:30 p.m., with the first half of the time designated
for the majority leader, or his designee, and the second half of the
time controlled by the minority leader, or his designee.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, at an
appropriate time, I will withdraw my objection, but I again state to
those assembled that it is absolutely wrong that we are going to spend
all day today in morning business when we have waiting legislation that
affects people in the State of Nevada. We could clean up lightly
polluted areas starting this year if we simply move forward on this
legislation.
I repeat, we have 500,000 sites in America today that are awaiting
action of this Congress. The President of the United States said he
supports brownfields legislation. Let us test him to find out if he
does. I think it is absolutely wrong that we are going to spend all day
in morning business.
Further, under the proposal my friend from Vermont has propounded,
the first 90 minutes will be under the control of the Senator from
Vermont or somebody on his side. My friend from North Dakota is here
and wishes to speak this morning. Will the Senator allow the Senator
from North Dakota to speak for 20 minutes? I do not see anyone here.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection so long as it is coming out of your
time.
Mr. REID. Yes, of course. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President,
that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes and that the Senator from
North Dakota be allowed to speak for 20 minutes and that the time be
taken out of the 90 minutes designated by the unanimous-consent request
of the Senator from Vermont.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at
2:15 p.m. the Senate resume morning business until 5:15 p.m., with
Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each and the time be equally
divided in the usual form.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page 6004]]
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators,
negotiations are continuing on the education bill. It was hoped that
negotiations could be completed this morning with the understanding
there would be amendments offered to the legislation. However, the time
between 2:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. is expected to be used for the initial
discussion of the education legislation.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________
BROWNFIELDS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this brownfields legislation is important.
It provides three important steps to directly spur cleanup and reuse of
these abandoned and contaminated sites.
No. 1, it provides critically needed money to assess and clean up
abandoned and underutilized sites which will create jobs and increase
tax revenues and preserve great parks and open space. It is estimated
this legislation will bring tax revenues to local governments of up to
$2.4 billion.
No. 2, it encourages cleanup and redevelopment by providing legal
protections for innocent parties, such as contiguous property owners,
prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners.
Under the present state of the law, these places are left abandoned
because people are afraid if they purchase these properties or lease
them, they will be subject to Superfund liability. This legislation
negates all that.
No. 3, it further provides for funding and enhancement of State
cleanup programs and a balance between providing ``certainty'' for
developers and others but still ensuring protection of public health.
We reported this bill out of committee by a vote of 15-3. A couple of
Senators had some problems. We worked literally day and night on a
staff level to resolve those problems. For example, the Senator from
Ohio had some suggestions. I told him at the committee that we would
work with him, and we have. We have satisfied Senator Voinovich's
problems with this legislation.
We need to do this. The reason I am so frustrated is that yesterday
we did nothing, and today we are going to stand around and be in
morning business. There is no reason we cannot do this. We have agreed
on this side to 2 hours of debate evenly divided. I do not know why in
the world we cannot move forward with this legislation. It is extremely
important.
I believe President Bush is a good person, and I believe he means
well and wants to do the right thing. He stated during the campaign
that he supports brownfields legislation.
His environmental record has been abysmal this first 100 days. Why
doesn't he lend his prestigious efforts to this legislation that he
says he supports?
I cannot understand why we do not move forward with this legislation.
This legislation is important. It is important to the State of Nevada.
It is important to every State in the Union.
As we all know, this issue has wide support from groups including
environmentalists, the Mayors' Association, businesses, the real estate
community. This bill is a meeting of minds from all sectors of American
society and from both sides of the aisle.
S. 350 is a model of how an evenly divided committee can work
together. I urge the Republican leadership in the Senate to show this
Senate can recognize good legislation when it sees it and prove to
Americans a 50/50 Senate can be productive and we can enact good laws.
I urge my friend, the junior Senator from Mississippi, the majority
leader, to allow us to debate this bill and move forward on it. We will
do it with a short agreement. We agreed to 2 hours.
This bill will pass overwhelmingly. Work done by the Presiding
Officer and the Senator from California has been exemplary, and the
work the full committee did is excellent. I urge my colleagues to work
toward moving this forward. Hard work has been done. The cooperation of
the Republicans and Democrats on the committee was noticeable. It is a
shame at this time we don't move forward with this legislation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________
THE TRADE DEFICIT
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week we were all witnesses to
headlines in the newspapers about a meeting held in Quebec City,
Canada. The newspaper headlines talked about tear gas, chain link
fences, police lines, demonstrators, 30,000 people marching down
streets. It also discussed anarchists.
What is this all about, 30,000 people demonstrating in the streets of
a major city in our hemisphere? It is about international trade. The
same sort of thing happened in Seattle a year and a half ago. The
future WTO ministerial meeting will be held not in a major city but in
a place called Qatar. Why? Because no city wanted to host it, as I
understand it. They will have to even bring in cruise ships for hotel
rooms. They feel if the ministers of trade from around the world can
hold a meeting in an isolated place, no one will show up to protest
their closed door meeting.
Last week's demonstrations in Quebec City underscored again that
world leaders are not going to hold trade talks without attention being
paid to the issues concerns of the people and the problems related to
global trade. It is not that global trade ought to be stopped. It is
that global trade has marched relentlessly forward without the rules of
trade keeping pace. There is a relentless accelerated march toward
globalization. However our world leaders have not develop acceptable
rules, so people demonstrate in the streets.
I want to make two points this morning: One, trade is very positive
for our country when it occurs in circumstances where it is fair. It
makes sense for us to do that which we do best and trade with others
who in their comparative advantage are doing what they do best. That
makes sense on the world stage. Our country has been a leader in world
trade, a leader in expanded trade, and it does make sense to expand our
trade opportunities as long as doing so represents the values that this
country considers important in the development of our economy and in
the development of our international relationships.
It is also the case that while all say that expanded trade is good
for this country, it is also the case that we ought not allow the
international corporations in this world to pole vault over all the
issues that relate to labor, the environment and of production simply
by saying: We are going to produce in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangladesh,
or China, and we will ship back into the United States. So what if they
hire 12-year-olds and pay them 12 cents an hour, working them 12 hours
a day. So what. They would like us to think that is a fair trade.
It is not a fair trade. That is why people are marching in the
streets. It is not fair trade when corporations are able to become
international citizens and decide to circle the globe in their
airplanes and evaluate where they can produce the cheapest, where they
can employ kids, where they can dump pollution in the water and the
air, where they can have factories without the barriers and problems of
making them safe and produce there, create a cheap product and send it
to a department store in Pittsburgh or Los Angeles, or Butte, MT.
The question is, Is it fair trade when that happens? This country has
fought for a century over these issues. All of those fights were
agonizing. Many occurred in this Chamber. The fight about whether we
ought to be able to employ children, so we have child labor laws saying
we don't want you to send 12-year-olds into coal mines. We don't want
12- and 14-year-olds put on a factory floor to work 12 hours a day. We
have child labor laws.
The question of safe workplace, demanding that those who employ
people employ them in safe workplaces that are not going to pose risks
to the life and safety of workers. We have fought, and made laws to
protect our people.
The issue of fair compensation, we have fought for a long while in
this
[[Page 6005]]
country about that issue. We have collective bargaining and the ability
of employees to form and join unions. We have minimum wages. We fought
about that and continue to fight about that from time to time in this
country, but we have settled part of it. Now, some say that doesn't
matter; we can go elsewhere. We can produce elsewhere, where people
can't join a labor union, they are illegal. We can produce where we can
hire a 12-year-old child and pay 16 cents an hour, and we can make a
pair of shoes that has an hour and a quarter direct labor, with 20
cents labor costs in a pair of shoes, and ship that to New York City
for a department store shelf because we are saying to the American
consumer, this is better for you because it is cheaper for you.
So people demonstrate in the streets because they say that is not
fair trade. That is not what we mean by expanding the opportunities of
trade.
We have had some experience in this country recently with our trade
issues and that is not a pleasant experience. This chart shows what has
happened to this country's trade deficit. There has been a great deal
of good news on the issue of deficits in this country. The fiscal
policy and the budget deficits have diminished year after year, and we
now have surpluses. Look what has happened to the trade deficits of
this country.
In 1993, we had merchandise trade deficits of $132 billion. It is now
$449 billion and growing. This trade deficit is mushrooming. If there
are people who think it doesn't matter, think again. This is like the
runup of dot com companies in the stock market. Everybody thought
NASDAQ would continue to increase forever. These values are perfectly
understandable. We had people on Wall Street who made a lot of money
that were justifying and explaining why the values made sense.
They didn't make sense. This doesn't make sense. This ballooning,
mushrooming trade deficit will cause serious problems to this country
unless it is addressed. This country must repay these trade deficits.
With a budget deficit, you can make the case that it is a deficit, you
owe it to yourself. You cannot do that with trade deficits. This is a
deficit we owe to others.
Inevitably, they are repaid with a lower standard of living in this
country. That is an action in economics that no one disputes. This is a
very serious growing, abiding problem.
With whom are our trade deficits? Our trade deficits are with Canada.
We passed a U.S.-Canada trade agreement. We had a reasonably small
trade deficit with Canada. We quickly doubled it, very quickly doubled
our trade deficit with Canada. What an incompetent trade agreement. We
ought to haul those negotiators to the well of the Senate to explain to
us what they did in public and in secret to undercut this country's
interests in the U.S.-Canada agreement. I could talk about some of
those issues, but I don't have time today.
China, the China trade deficit, the trade deficit we now have with
China is an $83 billion merchandise trade deficit, and growing rapidly;
the European Union, $55 billion trade deficit, and growing; Japan, $81
billion trade deficit, and growing. And we have had a trade deficit
with Japan of $50 billion a year plus now for a long time.
Mexico, by the way, prior to the U.S.-Canada and Mexico trade
agreement, something called NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement,
we had a surplus trade balance with Mexico. We had a surplus. It is now
nearly a $25 billion deficit. Talk about colossal incompetence. The
trade agreements we have negotiated in recent years have undercut this
country's interests in fair trade. In every set of circumstance, our
country bows to trade agreements that undercut our workers and our
producers all in the name of free trade.
Quebec City hosted a big meeting last week. The President went to
Quebec City and talked about the desire for expanded trade agreements.
He said Congress must give him what is called trade promotion
authority. That is just new language for fast track. What the President
is saying is: I want fast-track trade authority.
To the extent I have the capability of involving myself in this, I
will say to the President: You are not going to get fast-track trade
authority. We wouldn't give it to President Clinton, and we won't give
it to you. Your first job is not to create new trade agreements when
every agreement in recent years has undercut this country's interests
and resulted in larger and larger trade deficits. Your first job is to
fix the problems that have been created in the last decade and a half.
Fix these problems, then come to us. Then we can talk about trade
promotion authority.
Do you want to hear some problems? We have a huge, growing trade
deficit with Japan. Do you know what the tariff is on a T-bone steak we
send to Tokyo, American beef sent to Japan? There is nearly a 40-
percent tariff on every single pound of American beef sent to Japan--40
percent. That would be declared a huge problem if the United States
imposed a 40-percent tariff, but we will allow our allies to do that,
our trading partners. Why? Because we are poor negotiators and we do
not have backbone and we do not have the nerve and we do not have the
will to stand up for this country's economic interests. So T-bones to
Tokyo are just a small example, just one small example.
How about going from T-bones to apples? Try sending apples to Japan.
Do you know what Japan will tell apple growers in this country? They
say the apples that are shipped in Japan must be shipped from trees in
the United States that are separated by at least 500 meters from the
other trees in the orchard. Does it sound goofy to you? It does to me.
How do they get by with it? They get by with it because we negotiate
incompetent agreements, incompetent bilateral agreements with these
countries.
China? Well, China has a huge and growing trade surplus with us--or
we a deficit with them. They ship us their trousers and their shirts
and their shoes and their trinkets--they flood our country with their
goods. But try to get American wheat into China these days. Ask what
China is buying from the United States. See whether our trade agreement
with China is fair.
Let me just give one example. We just sent negotiators to negotiate
with China. When they finished--I will just talk about automobiles for
a moment. China has 1.1 billion people. When our negotiators finished,
just a year and a half ago, negotiating a bilateral agreement with
China, here is what they said: China, it is all right for you, after a
rather lengthy phase-in, to impose a 25-percent tariff on any
automobiles the United States sends into China. And, by the way, for
our part, we will impose a 2.5-percent tariff on any automobiles China
would send to the United States.
We sent negotiators to sit down with the Chinese to negotiate a
bilateral agreement and said what we will agree to, with a country with
1.3 billion people that is going to need a lot of automobiles in the
future, we will agree you can impose a 10-times higher tariff on
automobiles that we would send to China versus the automobiles they
might send to the United States.
I would like to find the people who agreed to that on behalf of this
country and ask them how do they justify their public service by such
incompetence. It makes no sense to me that we engage with other
countries on trade and are not hard-nosed and strong negotiators,
saying we are all for trade so let's have reciprocal trade policies: We
must say you treat us like we treat you, we treat you like you treat
us. Let's treat each other fairly.
But that is not the way our trade negotiators see it. Every single
time they get involved in a negotiation, our farmer, ranchers, and
small businesses lose. I talked about having our trade negotiators wear
jerseys as they do in the Olympics. At least they could look down and
see the initials on the jerseys and see for whom they are working.
What is happening with trade with China, Canada, EU, Japan, and
Mexico? There is now a merchandise trade deficit of over $450 billion a
year, a deficit every single day of goods going into our country that
exceeds goods going out, and this $450 billion in accumulated
merchandise deficits is part of
[[Page 6006]]
our account that has to be settled at some point, and it will weaken
this country's economic strength when we do it.
The question for this administration--and I have asked exactly the
same question with the previous administrations--is: Are you going to
stand up for this country's economic interests? President Bush went to
Canada. He said at the outset that we have to recognize the issues of
labor and the environment in trade agreements. Then later in the week
he said: Trade agreements must be commercial--commercial interests,
and, by the way, what I want is trade promotion authority--which, as I
said, is a new term for fast track.
For those who do not know what fast-track authority is, it means our
negotiators shall go negotiate an agreement with another country, bring
it back as a treaty to this Senate, and the provisions under fast track
would be we can debate it but cannot amend it; no Senator has the right
to offer any amendments at any time under any circumstances.
It is fundamentally undemocratic. Had we had the opportunity to offer
amendments to NAFTA, we would not be in this situation with Mexico and
Canada, just as a example, with respect to our current trade agreement
with our neighbors.
The big study on Mexico and Canada was by Hufbauer and Schott study,
which everybody used. The Chamber of Commerce and all our colleagues
used it. They said if we do this trade agreement, we will have 350,000
new jobs in this country. And they said here are the imports and
exports between the United States and Mexico that we expect after this
agreement.
It turns out they said the principal imports from Mexico would be
imports of largely unskilled labor. What are the three largest imports
from Mexico? The three largest imports are automobiles, automobiles
parts, and electronics, all of which come from skilled labor, all of
which mean the Hufbauer and Schott study missed its mark. We didn't
gain jobs, we lost jobs with that trade agreement and turned a surplus
into a fairly large trade deficit.
Who is going to be called to account for that? Nobody. Because that
is exactly what the international companies wanted. They do not get up
in the morning and say the Pledge of Allegiance. They are international
entrepreneurs, and they are interested in producing anywhere in the
world where they can find the fewest impediments to production and the
cheapest place to produce. They don't want to have to worry about the
child labor laws, pollution and the standards that countries impose in
preventing companies from dumping into the air and water. They don't
want to have to worry about worker safety. They don't want to have to
worry about fair compensation. They had those fights and lost them in
this country, and now they want to go elsewhere and say: We want to be
able to ignore that.
The people in the streets are saying: Wait a second, there needs to
be some basic set of standards. What does it mean when someone ships
carpets to this country and the carpets are made by kids, 10- and 12-
year-old kids, some of whom have had gunpowder put on their fingertips
to have them burned off so they have permanent scarring, so 10- and 12-
year-old kids can make carpets and run needles through the carpets, and
when they stick the top of their fingers, it doesn't hurt them because
they have already been scarred by burning.
That is part of the testimony before Congress about child labor. It
is happening in this world. Is it fair trade for those carpets to come
into our country and be on our store shelves? Would anybody be proud to
buy from countries where the circumstances of production are
represented by that kind of behavior? The answer is no.
What I want to say today is very simple. The example in Quebec City
last week is an example that is going to continue. I do not support the
anarchists and others who show up for those events to cause trouble,
but I understand why protesters come to those events, peaceful
protesters--and most of the 30,000 people who showed up were peaceful.
I believe we should expand trade. I believe expanded trade is important
for this country. But I also believe this country ought to be a world
leader, promoting and standing up for the values for which we fought
for over a century to protect. Those are the values of dealing
thoughtfully with the rules of production dealing with the hiring of
children, with safe workplaces, dealing with the environment and
controlling the emission of pollutants.
If this is, indeed, a global economy and if it matters little where
people are producing, then you have to have some assurance, if they are
going to close a plant in Toledo or Fargo and move to Guangzhou, they
are not going to be able to do that because in Guangzhou they can hire
kids and pollute the water and air and not have a safe workplace and
produce a cheaper product and represent to the people of the world: We
have done it all for you. That is not doing anybody a favor. That is a
retreat from the standards for which we fought for a century in this
country.
People will demonstrate in the streets on trade issues because they
want the rules to keep pace with the relentless march of globalization.
I want globalization to continue, but I want it done under rules that
are fair. Coming from a small State in the northern part of this
country, North Dakota, that borders a friendly nation, Canada, I know
full well what happens when we are sold out and undercut by our trade
negotiators. It happened to us with the trade negotiations with Canada.
We sent a trade ambassador to Canada. They negotiated a trade
agreement, and they essentially said to family farmers: Your interests
are unimportant to us, so we will sell those interests out in order to
get concessions for other industries. And we have family farmers going
broke in my State because we have an avalanche of unfairly traded durum
wheat coming into this country. We produce 80 percent of that in the
State of North Dakota. Durum wheat is used to produce semolina flour
which makes pasta, so most everyone has eaten semolina which comes from
the fields of North Dakota in the form of our pasta. But durum growers
were severely undercut. Their interests were severely undercut by our
former trade ambassador who not only made a bad agreement but then made
a private side deal that he didn't disclose to Congress, and he pulled
it right out from under our producers. That is not fair.
Neither is it fair that we will negotiate with a country such as
Canada that has a monopoly state trading enterprise and that sells
their wheat on what is called the Canadian Wheat Board, which would be
illegal in this country. They say: We will have a trade arrangement
under which we will sell in the U.S. market at practically secret
prices and refuse to disclose it to anyone. It is fundamentally unfair
trade.
We sent people to Canada to say we want to evaluate the prices at
which you sell to determine whether you are dumping in the American
marketplace. They thumb their noses, saying: We don't intend to show
you one piece of paper about what we are doing in United States.
To allow that to happen is unfair. It is unfair to farmers, it is
unfair to producers, and it is unfair to workers. On a broader level,
it is unfair to corporations that are doing business in this country
and producing for our marketplace.
I hope it is not lost on this administration--I have said the same
thing to previous administrations--that they should not hold trade
agreements or trade negotiations, or trade conferences for that matter,
in cities around the world without, in my judgment, opening the
discussion for a lot of people who want to raise questions about what
the fair rules are for international trade. Globalization will
continue, and should. But it must be attended by rules of fair trade,
and people ought to understand that and know that.
Second, finally, when we negotiate trade agreements, we ought not to
be afraid to stand up for this country's economic interests. It is
about time to
[[Page 6007]]
be a bit hard nosed, and have a backbone that serves to stand up for
this country's interests.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are, of course, poised this week to
take on one of the most important issues we will face during this year.
That is the issue of education.
As we talk about issues over the country and as we take polls,
education is the first issue the American people are interested in, and
very understandably so. Certainly there is nothing more important to us
than education. I think nothing is more important than the future of
our country with respect to the training of our children who obviously
will be the leaders of the country. I am looking forward to that. I
think certainly there are many things that can be done and that
Congress can do.
Clearly, in my view, the principal responsibility for public
education lies with the States, with the communities, and the decisions
that are made with respect to the schools ought to be made primarily
based on the needs of those schools as defined by the local leadership.
The role of the Federal Government then is one that is always debated
in the Senate, and properly so. It is one on which there are different
views as to what the role of the Federal Government is and should be.
The amount of financial contribution made to the elementary and
secondary schools is approximately 6 to 7 percent of the total cost. It
is relatively small, but it is very important. Often it is oriented
specifically to special education--to a particular need, and so on.
That is good. We will, hopefully, have a bill before us that will
provide for some commonsense education and a reform plan that will help
all children attain their potential so they can be successful.
In increasing the accountability for student performance, money is
obviously the key factor. Money alone, however, is not enough. Money
just doesn't do it unless there is some other accountability there so
we can measure performance. We need to support the programs that work
and take a look at those that do not work. Obviously, there are some of
each.
I think we need to reduce the bureaucracy so that officials in
Washington are not deciding what we ought to do in Sundance, WY, or
Philadelphia. The people in other parts of the country ought to have
the opportunity.
We need to empower parents to be able to make decisions with respect
to their own children's future. Part of what we will be talking about
in consideration of the bill will be to hold schools accountable with
annual reading and math assessments and annual testing that gives
parents the information they need to be able to determine whether or
not their children are learning.
Testing is somewhat controversial, particularly national testing. I
hope we can give the States as much flexibility as possible as to how
they do that. On the other hand, with the kind of movement we have
among children as they get out of school and go to other places, we
need to ensure that as they are trained in Colorado, they are prepared
to work in California; that their educational background will give them
the ability to do that.
Testing gives educators the information they need to know what works,
to see what is working in classroom and to improve skills and improve
teaching effectively. That is part of what we will be doing. Federal
dollars should not follow failure. We need to ensure that the programs
that are funded by Federal dollars are programs that are useful and
programs that are producing results. I think we need to make sure we
support the programs that are effective and that are research-based
programs. Schools need to be held accountable, of course. School boards
need to do a lot of that. Parents need to do a great deal of that.
We need flexibility, of course, As I mentioned, school districts are
quite different. They need to know that school districts are different.
It is really not appropriate to send dollars, saying they have to be
used to reduce the size of the class when in fact the size of the class
is not the issue; computers are the issue or the building is the issue
or teacher training is the issue. We need to do that.
Parents need to be empowered, of course, to be able to determine the
quality of education the children are receiving so they can make some
decisions. I think there has to be clear accountability. In many cases,
I think the idea that you can have some choice among public schools is
the way parents can have some accountability as well. In my hometown of
Casper, WY, we have a number of charter schools--schools that are
different from public schools--so that children have a chance to go to
different places and do different things.
We will be talking about the Educational Opportunities Act. We will
try to respond to the declining student performance we all hear about
in our public schools. We need to change what is going on if our
purpose is to have higher performance. The Educational Opportunities
Act is designed to support learning efforts in all 50 States and
helping local leaders determine what those programs need to have.
Also, we will be talking about how to help disadvantaged children
meet the high standards and providing schools and teachers with greater
decisionmaking authority to make the changes that will result in better
performance and schools more responsive to the needs. For any school
that fails to help its students over a period of time and make adequate
progress, perhaps there can be an opportunity either for that school to
be restructured or, indeed, in many instances for the parents to have
an opportunity to send their kids to other public schools.
I don't think in the beginning that the proposal will have the
voucher aspect of it, even though that is very controversial. But we
can have the charter idea, and we can have the notion that people can
choose.
There is nothing more important in education than the teacher. Give
them a better opportunity for training. Alternative certification may
be helpful to continuing learning opportunities. Teacher empowerment
will be one of the programs.
We will have enrichment initiatives where there can be different
programs designed for the 21st century learning centers, where you can
have special kinds of schools and special kinds of programs happening
for kids. There is also the gifted and talented program, the advanced
placement program, and help for neglected, delinquent, and at-risk
students. There are all kinds of programs that are necessary.
Obviously, safe and drug-free schools is something we want. We used
to think about the problem of talking out loud or chewing gum in
schools, and so on, as problems in school. Now problems are much more
serious than that. There are drug problems, shooting problems, and
other kinds of safety problems. So we are going to address that issue.
There is a title on educational opportunity initiatives where we can
help children with the establishment of charter schools. More of that
will be done. It is pretty much a local initiative.
We can help students across the digital divide so they are computer
literate in the eighth grade and ready to do the things that now need
to be done to be successful in the private sector.
There is bilingual education and educational enhancement. I think
there needs to be some focus on students who speak limited English so
that they have a better chance to succeed when they go out into the
world. Obviously, the students will want to maintain their own choice
of language, and that is great. But if they are going to be
[[Page 6008]]
successful in this country, they have to be competent in English. I
think that is something that can be done.
There is also impact aid. Of course, we have schools that are
different, schools that are in communities that are largely Federal.
For example, they do not have the same kind of tax structure and
opportunities that others do. We have schools on Indian reservations
and schools for Native Alaskans, and so on, that need special care. In
Wyoming, we have reservations that need special attention. We can
provide that special attention.
So these are the issues that will be involved in the educational bill
that is upcoming. There is great concern over the amount of money that
will be put in education. The Republican bill has more money in the
budget than the President has asked. There will still be arguments made
about needing more money.
Of course, one of the issues is that when there is a ``surplus,''
there is never enough spending to suit some people. Others think there
ought to be a limitation on the role of the Federal Government. I
happen to agree with that in terms of its involvement in elementary and
secondary education.
So I think we will have a spirited debate. It is interesting, though.
Everyone in the debate, I believe, would agree that we have a real
responsibility and are determined to help strengthen the educational
system in this country. The question will be, how do we do it? How do
we best do it? What are the areas in which we can have the most impact?
I have to confess, frankly--and I know there is testing, and so on--I
am pretty proud of the system that we have and the young people with
whom I have occasion to deal. Frankly, my wife is a special ed teacher,
so I have a little insight into that. As I tour around our State, I am
pretty darn proud of the young people in my State. I think they do a
great job. Quite frankly, many of them are better prepared for life
when they get out of school than I was or perhaps some of us were that
are a little older.
So are we where we should be? No, of course not. Are there areas that
are particularly in need? I think so. And we are in one of those areas
right now. The results in the District of Columbia are not up to the
normal performance levels. There are many of those areas. So we need to
work on that. But we also have lots of dedicated teachers who do a
great job and lots of school districts that do a great job.
So I am anxious for us to move on this matter of education. I think
we will be on it today. Certainly we will be on it for some days.
Indeed, we should be. As we deal with this question--or any question,
for that matter, but this one maybe even more than others--we need to
set some goals for ourselves as to where we want to be in 10 years,
where we want to be in 15 years, what we want our children to be able
to do, what opportunities we want to be able to provide for them, so
that as we deal with today's issues, and the issues that are in this
bill and are before us--each one is a rather small step--that those
steps are directed for the attainment of a goal with which we can all
agree.
It seems to me that is very important to having a successful
discussion of an issue of this kind.
We need to have defined what our values are, what our goals are,
where we are headed, and what it is we want to have as a result of the
efforts we have made.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AMERICA'S PRIORITIES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as the Members of the Senate are returning
this week from our Easter recess, many of us spent time in our home
States talking with our families and leaders, trying to catch the pulse
of America. I was back in Illinois and had the opportunity to travel
across my State and have a number of meetings which had a profound
impact on me in terms of our debate in the Senate. I think these recess
periods are valuable because, as close as we think we are to people,
there is absolutely no substitute for sitting down with them and having
some conversations about the issues we are debating.
One of the issues we have spent a lot of time debating in Washington
is the whole question of the tax cut. I think most of us believe a tax
cut is a good thing to do. This may be a good time to do it. There is a
lot of uncertainty in America now about our economy. I met a lot of
people during the course of my time back home who have seen their
401(k) plans and IRAs and mutual fund savings take quite a battering
over the last 5 or 6 months. It has happened to virtually all of us who
were not quite smart enough to get out of the market at the right
moment.
I still have a very positive feeling about where we are going, and I
do believe we can get this economy back on track. But I, frankly, do
not believe we are going to do it with the proposal we have heard from
the White House for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. This is a suggestion by
the President that we will have such prosperity and such surpluses over
the next 10 years that we can make dramatic tax cuts now and be able to
pay for them 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 years from now.
It takes a lot of insight and foresight to look ahead and suggest
where America's economy is going to go. One of the people most
respected in Washington is Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal
Reserve. It was only 6 or 7 months ago that Chairman Greenspan
suggested raising interest rates to slow down a hot economy. Since
then, the economy has slowed down dramatically, and Chairman Greenspan
has been racing week-after-week to lower interest rates to try to get
things moving again.
So even the best minds at the Federal Reserve and the Chairman 6
months ago, 8 months ago, were guessing wrong about where America's
economy would be today. I think it leads to a healthy skepticism by
many people when President Bush says: I know what America is going to
look like 5 years from now; I know where we are going to be.
Take a look at the same economists President Bush is relying on. What
did they guess 5 years ago for today? They told us America would find
its economy in such a shape and the Federal budget in such a shape that
we would have a $320 billion deficit this year. It turns out that our
surplus is about $260 billion. So they missed it by $580 billion 5
years ago when they tried to guess where we would be. So I think you
might understand why this Member of the Senate and many of the people I
represent are skeptical when the President says the best thing for
America is to guess we are going to be so well off in 5 or 10 years
that we can create tax cuts now.
Many of us believe we are on the right track in terms of the general
drift of our economy, though we are in a slow period; We do think if we
make the right decisions now we can get back to see the growth of
income in families, the increased value of our retirement plans, more
jobs, more housing. But we have to make the right decisions now.
If there is going to be a tax cut, and I think there should be, it
should be a sensible one, one that we can justify, not only today, but
which might look good a few years from now. If we are going to have a
tax cut, for goodness' sake, everybody in this country should profit
from it. Everybody should benefit. All taxpayers should benefit.
Under President Bush's proposal, the $1.6 trillion tax cut, 43
percent of the benefits go to people making over $300,000 a year. These
are people who have a monthly income of $25,000 or more. They are the
big winners in the President's plan.
[[Page 6009]]
I am sorry, but I do not believe those are the people on whom we
should be focusing. Yes, they are entitled to a tax cut, as every
American family should be, but they should not receive a
disproportionate share of any surplus.
Let me give you two illustrations. A man came up to me Saturday night
in Chicago and he said: You know, Senator, you just don't represent me
in Washington, DC.
I said: What do you mean?
He said: I think you ought to vote for President Bush's tax cut
because it would help people like me. I am one of those leaders in the
economy who makes a difference, and you, in fact, have criticized the
President for the tax cut that would help me.
I said: Tell me a little bit about your circumstance.
He says: I pay taxes. I paid a lot of taxes last year. I paid
$900,000 in Federal taxes last year.
How many people do you run into who paid $900,000 in Federal taxes? I
didn't know the man. But just a rough calculation--you don't have to be
H&R Block to figure this out--suggests that man's income last year was
$3 or $4 million, maybe more. He paid $900,000 in taxes and he was
critical that I didn't support the Bush tax cut that would have given
him over $46,000 of tax breaks last year.
I said to him: I understand that you have been an important part of
this economy. Of course you should be considered when it comes to tax
cuts. But you have done pretty well, haven't you?
He says: I have, but my portfolio has taken quite a hit over the last
6 months.
I said: Numerically, virtually all of us can tell that story.
But it is hard to imagine that this is the man we should be focusing
on when we talk about getting America's economy and people moving
again.
I had another conversation a few days before that stay in a little
hotel in Chicago late one night when I went to do some laundry down the
hall at about 9 o'clock. There was a housekeeping lady who was kind of
laughing at the Senator who was out doing his laundry. But I said we
kind of lead ordinary lives when we are not in the spotlight.
We started talking. This lady is a single mother who raises a few
children and works as a housekeeper in this hotel. I said: How are you
doing? She said: I thought I was doing pretty well, Senator. She said:
I was keeping up with my bills and everything, but this winter the
heating bills have really hit me hard. I paid the same amount as I did
last year for my heating bills, and I am $1,000 behind. Now I have to
pay $1,000 more. I have to pay for the heating bills, and now I am
working with the gas company to figure out how to do that. She said: I
really try to pay something on those. I have really tried. I am $1,000
behind.
I was thinking to myself, as I was flying back to Washington, about
those two people I met. Frankly, both of them are good, God-fearing
American citizens. But I have a great deal of concern about that lady
who is a housekeeper and is working at night trying to keep her family
together, paying her bills, and who ran into an unexpected expense of
$1,000 because of her heating bills. Sadly, the Bush tax cut provides
no tax benefit for them. If anything, it is about $220 a year. For the
man who makes $3 or $4 million a year, the Bush tax cut is worth
$46,000 more. For the lady who is trying to figure out how to pay for
the $1,000 heating bill, it is $200. That doesn't strike me as fair.
If there is going to be a tax cut in this country, it should be a tax
cut that really benefits all the taxpayers and gives everyone a chance
to have some spending money and have their taxes reduced.
Another concern of mine is that the Bush tax cut doesn't provide any
tax relief for people who do not pay income tax but pay payroll taxes.
Twenty-one million Americans go to work every day, and because their
income is low, they don't pay income tax but they pay the payroll
taxes. They pay for Social Security and Medicare. Sometimes it is a
substantial part of what they earn. To say that these people are not
taxpayers I don't think is fair. They are working people who pay their
payroll taxes and see it taken out of their paycheck. I think they are
entitled to be in this conversation about tax cuts to get America
moving again.
When it comes to the tax cut proposals, I sincerely hope that when
the conference committee meets, it is going to move closer to what the
Senate suggested and bring the President's tax cut down to a level we
can justify, that doesn't rely on inflated projections about where our
surplus might be, and try to make sure we invest in our priorities for
this country. And when it comes to the tax cut itself, let's try to
make that fair for all families--not 43 percent of it for people making
over $300,000 a year but for that housekeeper in that hotel in Chicago
doing her level best for her family and who just needs a helping hand
now, and for families who, frankly, have low-income jobs but are going
to work every day. They may not pay income taxes, but they see those
payroll taxes come out of every paycheck. Include them in any tax
assistance you provide.
One of the most significant votes during the course of the debate on
the budget came as a result of the amendment of the Senator from Iowa,
Mr. Harkin. He offered an amendment that said President Bush's $1.6
trillion tax cut should be reduced so that we can put more money into
two things: First, national debt reduction; and, second, education. I
think Senator Harkin was right. I am glad his amendment passed on a
bipartisan basis.
The national debt is our national mortgage. The national debt is
about $5.7 trillion. It has never been larger in our history. We
collect $1 billion a day in Federal taxes to pay interest on the old
national debt. It doesn't hire a teacher. It doesn't build a road. It
doesn't protect America. It services the old debt.
When Senator Harkin suggested that we put more money in debt
reduction, I think he was right. If there is going to be a surplus this
year, let's start retiring the national mortgage. The best gift I can
leave my kids or grandson is to have less of a debt burden for my
generation. I think that makes sense.
I am glad Senator Harkin prevailed. The White House did not approve
of his amendment. They opposed it. But a bipartisan majority on the
Senate floor supported it.
The second part of Senator Harkin's amendment also goes to the key
issue of education. Senator Harkin proposed $250 billion in new
spending by the Federal Government for education over the next 10
years. I think Senator Harkin is right on the money.
As I talk to people across my State of Illinois, they say education
is very important. For many of us, without education, we wouldn't be
where we are today. Neither my mother nor father went beyond the eighth
grade, yet I was able to go through high school, college, and law
school and stand in this Chamber today. I brought the report card home
every 6 weeks. It was a big event in our house. My parents may not have
had a great formal education, but they knew what education was all
about. I think families across America know that education is really
the ladder we all climb for success in America.
Senator Harkin said in his amendment, cut back on President Bush's
tax cut and put the money in education. Where would we put it?
I had a meeting in Naperville, IL. Naperville is the fourth largest
city in my State. It is a great community. The mayor took me around. We
went to a local high school, Naperville Central. They are very proud of
the fact that they just took an international test in math and science
and came up first. It is a good school system. But it is a school
system facing a lot of pressure right now because of cutbacks in funds
and property tax caps. They are doing their best to keep good teachers
and to make sure they still have the best students. That is one of the
better off school districts in my State. In my old home, East St.
Louis, and parts of Chicago they are really struggling with limited
funds.
Senator Harkin said we needed to invest more Federal dollars in
education
[[Page 6010]]
in the areas they have focused on with these investments. The local
level I think is what most people understand.
First, the key to success in education is good teaching. I can recall
some excellent teachers in my life who made a difference for me. I can
recall some who weren't so great where I had to kind of weather the
storm, get through and hope for a better teacher in another course and
another year.
Senator Harkin is talking about investing money in teacher training
so that we have the very best teachers in the classroom. We have a lot
of teachers who are going to retire very soon. We want to make sure
they are replaced by young, idealistic, and energetic teachers who can
really motivate our students to learn. There is no substitute for that.
If the Federal Government can assist in teacher training, recruitment,
and retention of good teachers, I think that is money well spent.
The second thing we are talking about is class size. I have had
teachers come up to me in the Chicago area and say the Federal
initiative to reduce the number of students in the classroom is the
best thing that ever happened to them.
Imagine yourself as a parent trying to raise your kids at home. I can
recall when my wife and I had our first child. We doted on that little
girl. We spent all that time. And then came along a son. Then came
another daughter. Pretty soon it looked like a mob scene in our house.
We tried to keep it under control with three kids. Imagine your
classroom every day with about 30 kids. It is a tough thing to make
sure you focus on every child's desk and what they are doing and trying
to give a little help to those needing a little extra help. Teachers
say, if you can reduce that class size to 20 or so, it makes a profound
difference in their effectiveness as teachers.
In Federal investment in education, we want to make sure we put that
money where it is needed so that we can have smaller classroom sizes.
I also think we ought to take a look at the schoolday. The schoolday
that ends at 2:30 or 3 in the afternoon isn't realistic anymore.
Usually kids don't have people to whom to go home. They have a period
of 3 or 4 hours where they could stick around school and be involved in
activities. That is good. But for too many of them it is just dead
time--time to watch television and hang out at the mall or on the
street corner. That is not the best time to be unsupervised. That is
when juvenile crime goes up. I think afterschool programs make sense,
so kids have supervision.
We have Gallery 37 in the Chicago public school system in which Mayor
Daley and his wife have been involved. They are about to expand that to
provide more opportunities for kids after school. I find that all
around my State that has happened. That ought to be a national program,
so that we have afterschool programs for kids who may need extra help
with their studies or may need an opportunity to learn how to play a
musical instrument, to get involved in an art class, or perhaps just to
play basketball. It may be something that will enrich them or enable
them to learn a little bit more about computers.
All of these afterschool activities are good, but we really need to
focus on it to make the schoolday reflect the reality of American
families.
The same thing is true with the school year. Three months off in the
summer so the kids can go work on the farm--there are not a lot of kids
working on the farm, even in Illinois. The question is whether or not
there should be a summer school opportunity for enrichment for
children.
You find that kids, if they have tested well at the end of the school
year, and they are gone for 3 months, when they come back they lose
lots of what they learned. So when we invest money in summer programs
to enrich kids, and give them new opportunities, and they continue to
learn, it is a good investment in continuing education.
I think taking money from the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut, which goes
primarily to wealthy people, and putting it into education so kids have
a chance in the 21st century in America makes a lot of sense. That is
why I was happy to support the proposal from Senator Harkin, the
bipartisan amendment which passed, to cut it back and make sure we have
more money invested in education.
We celebrated Earth Day last Sunday, too. I think that is worth a
comment or two, as well, because if we are going to make investments in
America, we certainly ought to make investments in environmental
protection.
Some of the things that have happened in the first 90 or 100 days in
the Bush administration have been very troubling, such as this whole
debate over arsenic in drinking water. I happen to believe we ought to
take a serious look at what we breathe and what we drink and what we
eat to make certain that it is safe.
All of us are concerned about public health statistics that show an
increase in cancer, in pulmonary disease, factors that lead us to
question why is this happening now in an America that is so modern, in
an America with so many health resources. I think, in many instances,
it gets down to the basics--the water we drink, the air we breathe, the
food we eat.
When the administration came in initially and said they were not
going to stick with the Clinton proposal of reducing the arsenic
content in water, there was a cry across America because families said:
Why are we doing that? Wouldn't we want to make water safer? We know
that arsenic is a carcinogen. It causes cancer: lung cancer, bladder
cancer, skin cancer.
For years now, we know that Europe has had a safer arsenic standard.
We know the National Academy of Sciences tells us we should move to the
safer standard. Why would the Bush White House reverse that position?
But they did.
Last week you may have heard Christine Todd Whitman at the
Environmental Protection Agency say they were going to reconsider this
decision. This debate goes back and forth. But I tell you, when it gets
down to something as basic as the safety of the water we drink, we
expect the White House to be listening to families across America and
not to special interest groups that are pushing for relaxed
environmental standards.
Whether we are talking about carbon dioxide in the air--which is part
of global warming--whether we are talking about lead or whether we are
talking about arsenic in drinking water, the Environmental Protection
Agency is supposed to be just that: an agency to protect the
environment, not a revolving door so that special interests and
corporate interests can come through and change regulations to their
liking.
I am glad they are going to reconsider their position on arsenic in
drinking water. But I certainly hope that is not an isolated situation
where they found religion. I hope that it reflects a new idea in the
Bush White House about true environmental protection.
We can take a look at some of the energy concerns across America, and
they are directly linked to the environmental questions. The people who
have talked to me for the last several months in Illinois about
increased heating bills and the high natural gas prices now are talking
about increases in gasoline prices at the pump. I don't know if it is
happening across America, but it is certainly happening, again, for the
second year in a row, in Illinois, where we are seeing this runup in
gasoline prices at the pump.
Yesterday, two of the major oil companies reported record profits. It
is no surprise; the families and businesses I represent are paying more
at the pump, and that must translate into profits for some. The
question is, When the President's task force on energy policy comes in
with a report in a few weeks, will they take into consideration the
consumers, the people who are paying the bills--the higher electricity
bills, the higher heating bills, the higher gasoline bills? It is not
appropriate or fair, as far as I am concerned, for them to just look at
it from the corporate viewpoint.
I know the President and many of his people in the White House have
been closely aligned with the oil industry in Texas. I understand that.
That is part
[[Page 6011]]
of their background. But I think their responsibility now goes far
beyond the industry. It is time for them to be sensitive to the
families and consumers who are paying the bills.
A lady came to see me yesterday in Chicago and talked about the
increase in gasoline prices. She has a small business, a messenger
service. She said: Senator, here we go again. It hit us last year and
it is coming back this year. I have to lay off people. I can't afford
this.
I had some people who came to me from a steel company in Chicago,
Finkl Steel. They have had an increase in natural gas prices, which
means an increase in the cost of their product. They find it difficult
to pass along this cost to their consumers as they are struggling to
keep everybody working in their plant.
These energy prices, as they are going up, have a direct impact on
employment. We have to try to find an energy policy that accomplishes
several things. First, it gives America a reliable source of energy;
second, it makes certain consumers are not disadvantaged in the
process; and, third, it respects our environment.
I certainly hope the Bush administration comes in with a proposal on
this and that they will, in fact, take all three factors into
consideration, and not just the profitability of the energy industry.
So we have an important debate ahead of us in Washington on a number
of issues related to education, environment, energy policy, and
certainly health care. I left health care for last because it is
something that I think we have forgotten, and we should not. The people
I represent have not forgotten it.
I went up to Palatine, IL, to the clinic run by the Cook County
Bureau of Health Services and Northwest Community Health Care. I was
there with the mayor, Rita Mullins. After we went into this clinic, Dr.
Rodriguez came up to me and the first words out of his mouth were:
Welcome, Senator. We need universal health care.
That was the first thing he said to me. He had a waiting room full of
people with small children who were uninsured, people who were charity
cases for that clinic.
Each day in America more people lose health insurance. At a time of
prosperity, when those of us in Congress are supposed to be sensitive
to the real problems of families, we are totally ignoring the obvious.
More and more people are uninsured. Fewer and fewer families have peace
of mind when it comes to health insurance. More and more employers are
cutting back on health insurance coverage for their employees, and they
are making it difficult for those employees to protect their families.
I know a fellow who had a small business with only about 10
employees. One of the children of one of his employees had a serious
health problem. As a result of that health problem, the employee
incurred very expensive medical bills. The health insurance company
came back the next year and said: We are increasing your premiums by
over 50 percent because of the one child in the one family. Because of
that, the business was forced to drop health insurance coverage and to
merely give their employees the amount of money they had traditionally
spent for health insurance policies in the past. At least they did
something, but it was of little or no help to the one man and his
family who had been hit by all these medical bills.
That is the reality of the America in which we live. There are
virtually no proposals before Congress to deal with this problem. We
cannot overlook it because the people who get severely ill in this
country end up showing up, at some point, at the hospital when they are
facing an acute illness. They do get treatment, at the expense of the
system, at the expense of everyone else who pays for health insurance
premiums across this country.
There are several things I think we can do. First, I believe we
should provide tax benefits, deductions, and credits for small
businesses that offer health insurance. Give them a helping hand in the
Tax Code. If the President can find $1.6 trillion for a tax cut,
primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, for goodness'
sake, can't we find a tax break for small businesses so they can
provide health insurance for their employees? I think that is good for
the family who owns the business as well as those who work there.
Secondly, I have introduced legislation called caregivers insurance.
This is what I am trying to achieve. We entrust the people we love the
most in our lives to those who are paid a minimum wage.
Who am I talking about? Our children and grandchildren in daycare,
our disabled friends and relatives who need a personal attendant, our
parents and grandparents in nursing homes. They are primarily attended
to and watched by those making the minimum wage, and these people who
are keeping an eye on the folks we love the most generally don't have
any benefits; they certainly do not have any health insurance in most
instances.
The plan I propose, caregivers insurance, would make all of these
licensed workers in daycare facilities, personal attendants to the
disabled, and those working in nursing homes eligible for Medicaid
coverage in their States. The State of Rhode Island is doing this. I
think every State should do this--so that it is part of that job.
The turnover in these businesses is 50 percent or more each year. If
we are going to keep good daycare workers, if we are going to keep good
working people at nursing homes, we ought to give them the peace of
mind of having health insurance. That is something we should do in this
Congress. I hope the caregivers across America to whom we say we are
willing to entrust our children and our parents can come together and
prevail in this Congress for this health insurance protection. So as we
get into this debate, the serious part of it in the appropriations
bills, we have an important agenda ahead of us.
The President will have completed his first 100 days as of next
Monday. At that time, people will make an assessment. I think the
President deserves good marks in some areas even though I sit on the
other side of the aisle from his party. I certainly acknowledge that he
has shown a sensitivity to many issues to which the American people are
sensitive as well.
But I think the basic question is whether this White House is really
focused on the average family, the working family, the people who are
good citizens in their neighborhoods and in their parishes and churches
and synagogues and temples, people who are paying their taxes, obeying
the law, doing their best to raise their kids, whether this
administration keeps them in mind when it talks about a tax cut plan
that should be benefiting these families as much as the wealthy--sadly,
the Bush tax cut really is focused on helping the wealthiest among us
and not these families who make up the core values of America--and
whether the President's plan on education really thinks about families
across America in the cities and rural towns in Illinois and the
suburbs around Chicago, families who want their kids to have the very
best education, whether the President is really prepared not only to
give a speech about education but to provide a budget which funds
education at levels so that education quality is maintained and
improved for this country.
Finally, of course, when it comes to the environment, that the people
at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Interior will think about their public responsibility to the legacy we
are leaving our children. This Earth should be cleaner. It should be
safer. There should not be questions about the water we drink, the
arsenic levels in it, the air we breathe, and whether or not we are
doing our share in America to deal with global warming. We need to have
the courage and the leadership in the White House to be sensitive to
environmental issues that will affect generations to come.
The assessment of the first 100 days will be made by many, but the
most important assessment will be made by that family back in Illinois,
or whatever State they may be from, who will ask this basic question:
Does this administration, does this White House,
[[Page 6012]]
and does this Congress really care about me and my family? Are they
making decisions for special interest groups or for those who have all
of the power in Washington or are they remembering the real America,
the families in each community who make this the great nation it is?
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EDUCATION
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, maybe I should have taken the time to
look at some notes. Instead, I will speak extemporaneously about the
education bill.
I will take a few moments to talk about an issue that is near and
dear to me, given my own background as a teacher and my great passion
about children and education. I will talk about the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Before we went on break, I objected to a motion to proceed to this
bill. The main reason I objected was I did not know what was in the
bill. As a legislator, as a Senator from Minnesota, who gives, if you
will, a special priority to children and education, I wanted to know
what is in the bill.
The second question, of course, has to do with appropriations. But,
first things first. I wanted to know what is in this bill, and there
are some questions I want to raise right now in anticipation of what
will probably be a very rigorous and vigorous debate about education
before the Senate. This is as it should be.
The title of this bill is called BEST. President Bush is arguing we
can do our best for children and for education by the Federal
Government requiring that every school throughout the United States of
America having annual testing starting at age 8 with third graders,
going through age 13. This will be in addition to the testing that now
takes place.
The first point I want to make today about this legislation is that
we have to be very clear in the language that there is no abuse of
testing and that at the local and State level, school officials and
those who administer this test will be able to rely on multiple
measures. We want to be very careful that this testing is consistent
with National professional standards of testing. That is very
important. Quite often there is confusion between accountability, which
we are all for, and a single standardized test. They are not one in the
same thing.
The second point is if, in fact, we are going to have this mandate on
all of the States to do this testing, there has to be money committed
to administer these tests. This should not become an ``unfunded
mandate.'' States and school districts will be interested in that.
Most important of all, if we are going to have a massive requirement
which puts all of the emphasis on testing, we also should make a
massive commitment by way of resources to make sure all of the schools,
teachers, and children have the same opportunity to do well on these
tests.
Right now, we do not have that. What we have from the President is a
tin cup budget for education. I have said it over and over and over
again in the Senate, and in articles, one cannot realize the goal of
leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget. At the moment, we have
very little by way of increase in expenditures for education under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That, to me, is unconscionable.
If we are going to now basically say to every State, every school
district, every school, every child, take these tests and this is going
to be how we will measure how you are doing, we will set up a lot of
schools, teachers, and children for failure unless we give them the
resources to make sure the children can do well.
I will be very interested to see when we move to this bill, whether
or not there is a new, bold commitment to the title I program for kids
who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Now it is funded at a 33-
percent level. I will be interested to see whether or not there is a
commitment to afterschool programs, whether or not there is a
commitment to additional help for kids in reading, and whether or not
there is a commitment for rebuilding our crumbling schools. I will want
to see whether or not we have a commitment to smaller class size and
whether or not we have a commitment to recruiting good teachers. If we
don't do that and we don't live up to what is our responsibility, we
have put the cart before the horse. We are going to hold the schools,
children, and teachers accountable where we should be held accountable.
Where is the investment, I ask. I probably will offer a trigger
amendment, if, in fact, this bill comes to the floor, which will say
that no state will be required to implement the new testing under this
bill until we fully fund the federal share of the IDEA program, which
is a program for kids with special needs. How can we not fully fund
this program? Right now, we are funding IDEA at one-third of what we
owe. We need to pay for everything that we owe. How can we not fund
that? How can we not fully fund the title I program? How can we not
fund teacher recruitment, smaller class size, investing in crumbling
buildings, before we start saying we will have tests every year?
What the President has done, what the administration has done, and
what too many Democrats seem to be accepting is the idea that tests are
the reform. The tests are the way we assess reform. I do not believe we
will be doing our best for children in America if the only thing we
will do is force tests on every State and school district in the
country without at the same time giving the schools and teachers and
children the resources to do well.
If we want to make the argument that to invest money and not have any
tests is to not have any accountability, fine; let's have
accountability, if the testing is done the right way. My argument is if
all we do is have the tests and we have hardly any new additional
investment in education and in children, what we have done is have
accountability but it is a waste of time.
Quite frankly, until we get serious--the President is not; not in the
budget--it does not matter the words we utter. It is not the photo ops.
It is not visiting children in schools. Where it matters is whether or
not we are willing to make the investment.
Senator Harkin and I had an amendment that called for $225 billion
more by way of investment in education over the next 10 years. That
must be kept in the Budget Conference Committee. That amendment is all
about investment in children. Unless we do that, unless we make that
kind of a commitment, we are not doing our best for children.
My hope is that Democrats will make it very clear to our colleagues
on the other side that anything and everything that helps children and
education, we are for. Any way we can work together, we should do so.
But we are not going to throw our support behind an education program
which calls itself BEST--which does not come anywhere close to how we
can do our best for children--all for the sake of $2 trillion in Robin-
Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with over 40 percent of the benefits going to
millionaires.
This President so far has not shown the commitment to make the
investment in children and education. I hope the Democrats will stand
up for children and stand up for education. We will make it crystal
clear that if we are going to have this mandate of all these tests, the
resources are going to come with it. That is the second point.
Finally, there are some fairly serious policy questions left
outstanding. One of those policy questions has to do with what is
called the Straight A's Program. The question is whether or not we are
now beginning to go to block granting to, seven States. This,
theoretically could affect a large number of children in America. It
would mean we would all of a sudden move away from safe and drug-free
schools, move away
[[Page 6013]]
from afterschool programs, move away from certain programs that we have
passed as a national community. We want to have separate funding for
these programs, we want to make these programs a priority, for every
child, no matter where he or she lives. To move away from that Federal
commitment without some fairly strong language that makes sure all of
the children are going to benefit; that makes sure this is not abused
in any way, shape, or form; that makes sure this is not used for extras
as opposed to what can help children do their very best; I think we
have to be vigilant on this question.
I think this could shape up as a historic agreement if it is real.
But if it is not real, and the President is not willing to back his
rhetoric with resources, and instead he puts most of these resources
into tax cuts for, basically, wealthy people at the top, and does not
make this investment in education for children, Democrats should speak
up for kids. We should speak up for education. We should speak up for
our school boards and our school districts and our States.
As far as my State of Minnesota is concerned, I have been in enough
meetings with enough schools and enough teachers. We are going through
a very difficult battle at the State level, as well, on the education
budget. More than anything, what all of the good teachers tell me is
give them the resources to work. And, by the way, in addition, what the
really good teachers say is they do not want to be forced into some
sort of straitjacket education, where everybody is teaching to low
quality tests and to the lowest common denominator. This is the
educational deadening. If we are going to use tests, they must be high
quality. We have got to get it right, do it the right way.
Maybe every Senator has been in a school. I have tried to be in a
school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. If you get to the
school level, you get down in the trenches, you realize a lot of what
purports to be reform, may, in fact, not be so good for kids in
schools. It may, in fact, be counterproductive. It certainly will be,
unless we get the investment in resources.
For my own part, I objected before spring recess to move forward with
the bill, and I will continue to object until I see what is in the
bill, and then we will see whether we go forward in the debate. I hope,
unless the President comes forward with a real investment of resources,
that Democrats and some Republicans will directly challenge this piece
of legislation. I don't want to have a piece of legislation that has
this great acronym ``BEST'' with all of the symbolic politics that
purport to do so well for children and, in fact, do not. We shouldn't
play symbolic politics with children's lives. We ought to be able to do
well for kids and get the resources to the school districts, the
resources to the States, the resources to the schools, the resources to
the teachers, and the resources to the kids. At the minimum, we ought
to do that.
That would be my commitment in this debate that is to come.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our
environment, and the right of all American families to clean air, clean
water, and a clean future for generations to come.
Maintaining a clean and safe environment should not be a partisan
issue. All of us live on the same planet. We all breathe the same air.
We all drink the same water. When it comes to our global environment,
we are one community.
In fact, when Americans voted last November, they voted for two
Presidential candidates who both professed a strong commitment to our
global environment. Former Vice President Gore obviously made
environmental protection a top priority. But President Bush also made
several promises to improve environmental conditions.
Unfortunately, as we celebrate Earth Day, Americans around the
country are growing increasingly concerned that these environmental
promises have not been kept. Instead, we have seen a series of actions
that threaten to have significant and adverse effects on the quality of
our air and water, and on the natural resources that our children and
grandchildren will inherit.
First, President Bush reneged on a campaign promise to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions. Then he caused an embarrassment abroad by
announcing the United States' withdrawal from an international
initiative to address global warming. He went on to block new
protections against arsenic in our drinking water, even though
scientists have clearly found that Americans face unacceptably high
cancer risks from arsenic in drinking water under existing standards.
These actions are out of step, in my belief, with the American
people. Certainly they are out of step with the people of New Jersey.
Americans understand and reject the outdated notion that we need to
sacrifice the environment in the name of the economy.
Unfortunately, the attack on our environment continued in the
President's budget, which would slash funding for EPA and natural
resource programs by 15 percent over 10 years. This would significantly
weaken our commitment to environmental protection in many ways.
Consider, for example, the President's request for funding for water
infrastructure funding. The President is reducing the funding for the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund and wastewater loan program by $450
million in this budget year. Yet more than 40 percent of our Nation's
waters are not safe for fishing and swimming. In my own State of New
Jersey, 85 percent of the water does not meet the quality standards of
the Clean Water Act. I cannot and will not support a budget that will
take us to even lower standards of protection.
I also am concerned about the administration's proposal to cut
funding for clean air programs at the EPA. More than 100 million
Americans today breathe air that does not meet the standards of the
Clean Air Act. Yet President Bush's budget cuts EPA's clean air
programs by 6 percent next year, from $590 to $564 million. This could
have a serious impact, especially for those more vulnerable to dirty
air: the young, the old, and the infirm. Just this week we saw new
scientific evidence of the carcinogenic impact of breathing soot in our
air. I know it will have an impact in my State where the air quality in
9 of our cities and countries is among the worst in the Nation. We need
to move against this.
While the cuts to programs like clean air and clean water may tend to
get the most attention--and maybe they should--I am especially
concerned about the cuts in the President's budget for EPA's
enforcement operations--the so-called compassionate compliance. We can
have lots of strong laws on the books to protect our environment, but
if they're not enforced, they're worth little more than the paper
they're written on. We in New Jersey have seen the consequences of
underfunding enforcement. For example, our State reduced funding for
our water pollution control enforcement program by 26 percent. I
repeat, 85 percent of our waterways do not meet the clean water
standards. That is a major reason why we continue to have such
significant water quality problems in our State. We are not enforcing
the rules that we have on the books. I hope we will not repeat this
kind of mistake at the national level.
The President's budget also underfunds initiatives to conserve energy
and to develop clean energy technologies. Overall, the budget cuts for
the Department of Energy are $700 million next year. This includes a
$103 million cut in renewable energy research and development, and a
$20 million cut in energy conservation programs. These cuts come at a
time when our Nation is once again confronted with
[[Page 6014]]
the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to develop a
comprehensive energy policy. An energy policy that addresses this
challenge should have renewables and energy conservation as
centerpieces. Instead, this budget puts them on the chopping block.
The President's budget also threatens our Nation's land and wildlife
resources. It would weaken the protections of the Endangered Species
Act, underfund land conservation initiatives, and generally weaken the
Department of Interior's efforts to protect and preserve our Nation's
great natural heritage, including our national parks. This will
undermine numerous efforts by our States to fight the effects of sprawl
and over-development, including the one spearheaded in my own State of
New Jersey by our then-Governor, Christie Todd Whitman. She implemented
a 100,000-acre open space initiative as Governor. I am concerned
because in New Jersey the Sierra Club estimates that we are losing
10,000 acres of our dwindling open space a year. In New Jersey, these
are real issues for us. We are the most densely populated State in the
Nation.
The budget goes beyond cuts in some cases; for example, it eliminates
the popular Wetlands Reserve Program. This is a voluntary program that
creates incentives for farmers to manage their lands as wetlands.
Finally, the budget proposes to drill the pristine Arctic Refuge in
Alaska at the expense of rare species and fragile ecosystems.
Let me say that I would always prefer to give the President the
benefit of the doubt. His actions, and the things he has to do, are
difficult for everyone. But it is simply wrong to give big corporate
interests such overwhelming influence in the development of
environmental policies. The mining industry may do a lot of good, but
it should not control policies over public lands. The oil and gas
industries play important roles, but their short-term interests should
not undermine the broader public interest in protecting our precious
natural resources. We need a more balanced approach then we have been
getting thus far in our discussion of the environment.
It is a great disappointment to me and many of my constituents given
how important the environment is to each of them and their families. I
have certainly heard that as I have traveled across New Jersey in the
weeks leading up to Earth Day.
I hope we in the Congress will do what we can to help restore a
balance to our Nation's environmental policy. I assure the people of
New Jersey that I will continue to do all I can to resist efforts that
would lead to dirtier water and dirtier air and erode our national
heritage. The stakes are vital to our country and to my State. The
American people deserve better.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EDUCATION
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment to speak
about one element of the education issue which as we move towards the
debate on the education bill will be discussed at considerable length
in this Chamber.
I want to lay out a predicate for this discussion. That involves the
issue of what I call portability, or choice. Some have tried to place
on it the nomenclature of vouchers, which really isn't accurate. But
the issue is giving parents options in the educational system to assist
them in ensuring that their children get an education which is of
benefit to them and allows them to be competitive in our society.
I think we all understand that the core element of success in our
society is quality education. We especially understand that in New
Jersey where we don't have a natural resource to mine or agricultural
products. We don't have some unique physical characteristic that gives
us the ability to create income as a result of that characteristic. The
essence of what gives our State its competitive advantage is the fact
that we have a lot of people who are well-educated, intelligent, and
are able to compete successfully in a very highly technical society.
That is a definition that can be applied to our country as we see a
global market develop in all sorts of commodities. It becomes very
clear that the theories of Adam Smith apply in our society and in our
world today. There are certain products and certain capabilities which
one society is better at than other societies. Fortunately, our society
is best at those activities which produce the most wealth and the most
prosperity. A large percentage of those products and capabilities
involve technology. They involve intellectual capacity, and they
require a strong education system to succeed.
Regrettably, what we have seen in our society today is an educational
system that has not kept up with the needs of our Nation. In fact, tens
of thousands--literally hundreds of thousands--of kids in our
educational system simply aren't being educated at a level which makes
them competitive in this high-technology world. It makes them capable
of being successful, which means when they leave school they have the
capacity to compete with their peers in English and math and basic
science.
We have seen this regrettably for years and years. The situation
hasn't improved a whole lot. In fact, we see in study after study the
conclusion that our school systems aren't working that well in many
parts of our country; that we are well behind other nations which we
are competitors with in the international community in the
industrialized world. We rank close to last in math and science. It is
especially true of kids who come to the table of education who have a
natural disadvantage of coming from a low-income background. Those kids
are even further behind than kids who do not have that disadvantage
coming to the educational table. In fact, as I commented in this
Chamber before, the average child in the fourth grade coming from a
low-income background reads at two grade levels from his or her peers.
The same is true nationally. It is throughout the system. It is not
just fourth grade. We have seen the dropout rate. We see the lack of
capacity to be competitive academically on the low-income side, and
especially the minority side in our urban areas is a staggering
problem. It hasn't improved even though we have spent hundreds of
billions of dollars in this country trying to improve the system. What
can we do to change that?
We are bringing out an educational bill on the floor with amendments
to address a number of areas, and it has some very unique and creative
initiatives. The President made it his No. 1 priority. He brought
forward the debate and I think moved the debate dramatically down the
road or significantly down the road towards trying to get a different
approach to this issue, recognizing that we have not been successful
with the way things have been working for the last 20 or 30 years. He
has suggested that we give schools more flexibility, but in exchange
for flexibility for parents, teachers and principals in the school
system require more accountability, and that we hold that
accountability to be applied not only to the norm but to every
individual group within the norm, whatever their ethnic, race, or
income background. It is basically a testing program that requires kids
maintain that level of proficiency in their grade level.
But what happens when you see a school system which continues to fail
year in and year out? You may say: Who defines failure? The Federal
Government? No. Failure is defined by the local school district or the
State school board deciding what a child should know in the third,
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. It is not the Federal Government
setting the standard. It is the local school boards.
But we know literally thousands of schools in this country year in
and year out meet the standards when it comes to teachers teaching kids
in those school districts and those school
[[Page 6015]]
buildings--standards which are set up not by the Federal Government but
are set up by the local school districts or by the States.
Literally thousands of schools are not cutting it this year. They
have not cut it for years in sequence. In some of our urban areas, 80
or 90 percent of the schools simply are not teaching the children in
those school systems at a level that the local school district or the
local school board or State school board defines as educational
proficiency.
A parent who has to send their child to that school says to
themselves: What am I to do? My child started in this school in the
first grade and the school was failing. Now my child is in the fifth or
sixth or seventh grade and the school is still failing. My child has
passed through a system which simply wasn't teaching them what they
were supposed to be taught, and everyone knew that child wasn't
learning what they needed to learn.
What can the parent do under our present rules? The parent can do
virtually nothing to try to help their child unless they happen to come
from a reasonably high-income family. Then they can take the child out
of school, or even a moderate-income family if they have a Catholic
school system somewhere or a religious school system somewhere that has
a low cost and have their child go to that school. But for most low-
income families in our urban communities, their options are
nonexistent. If you are the single mother with two or three kids, or
even one child, and your child is trapped in that school system, you
are saying to yourself: How is my child ever going to have the
knowledge they need in order to be successful? How am I going to get my
child to a point where they can read and do math, where they can step
out of that school and get a good job, and where they aren't going to
be assigned to a situation where they cannot compete in our society
because they haven't been taught? That single mother's options are
nonexistent today.
Some of us on our side of the aisle, and a few on the other side of
the aisle, have suggested giving parents some options. Let's say to a
parent whose child is locked in the school that has failed year in and
year out--we are not talking about all parents. We are just talking
about parents in low-income families, and single moms trying to make a
living. They have a job. They are sending their kids to school. Their
kids are in a school that doesn't work. Let's say to those parents that
we have some other options. After 3 years in that school system that
has failed, the parent will have an option to use the special money
which the Federal Government sends to that school system to benefit
low-income children, which obviously isn't doing any benefit.
You, the parent, will have the ability to take a proportion of that
money and have it follow your child to another school, either a public
school or a private school, where your child will have a chance to
succeed. Your child will have a chance to participate in the American
dream rather than to be locked out of it because they are in a school
that does not work.
This concept has been demonized. This concept has been vilified. This
concept has been aggressively attacked, primarily by the liberal
educational establishment in this country, essentially the leadership
of the labor unions. Why is that? This concept of giving parents whose
kids are stuck in failing schools--low-income parents, most of them
single parents, most of them women--an option to do something to try to
bring their kids out of that destitute situation, why has it been so
attacked by the major labor union movement in this country which
controls the teachers' unions? Primarily because it is the first step
to what is known as competition.
Competition is an evil term when it comes to the liberal educational
establishment in this country. I am not really sure why it is an evil
term. If you go out to buy a car, you decide on buying that car because
there is competition. Competition has produced the one car that does a
better job of what you are interested in than what somebody else has
built. You buy a Ford over a Chevrolet or a Chrysler over a Chevrolet
or maybe a Chevrolet over a Chrysler because you decide they build a
better product that meets your needs more appropriately.
Competition has been the essence of what has produced quality in the
area of products in our country. They will say, this is not a
Chevrolet; it is education. No, it is not a Chevrolet. This isn't cars.
This is service. In the area of service you do exactly the same thing.
If you have a doctor who you think is not taking care of you or your
family correctly, you go to another doctor. If you have a dentist who
is not taking care of you correctly--maybe he drilled into your tooth
and did not give you any novocaine which caused you a little pain--you
go to another dentist.
For service providers, the same is true right across the board in our
country. The only place where service isn't provided in a competitive
way in our society with any significance, outside of pure Government is
in public education. As a result, regrettably, when a child is locked
in a failing school, the parent has no options. That is not fair. It is
not fair to that child. It is especially not fair to the low-income
parent in America. It is not fair to the urban poor in America that
their children are the only children who are subjected to this lack of
ability to have a chance at the American dream because we have a
society which demands that they attend a school that fails year in and
year out.
So we have suggested, let's give these parents and these kids a
chance. Let's take a small percentage of the funds and allow the parent
to use those funds to bootstrap that child into some other educational
venue where they think they can do a better job, where the parent
thinks they can do a better job. It can be a public school or it can be
a private school.
This is an idea that has caused great disruption obviously in the
educational community. But let me point out it is working today with
State and local dollars. It is working in the city of Milwaukee and in
the State of Arizona. They allow the State tax dollars and the local
tax dollars to follow the child to the educational venue, the
educational place they wish to go. It works very well.
Listen to the mayor of Milwaukee, who happens to be a very active
Democrat, and he proselytizes on this issue about how good it has been
for the kids in the inner city, to give them a chance to be more
successful, a chance to live the American dream. Remember, we are not
proposing--and this is critical to understand--a unilateral Federal
program that comes into the State, comes into the community, and says:
You must allow the parent to have portability, to have those dollars
follow the child.
What we are saying is this: We are going to put on the cafeteria line
of Federal programs an idea. You, the local school district, you, the
State, if you decide to, through your elected officials--and it is key
to underline that; through your elected officials--can take off that
cafeteria line the idea of portability, having the dollars follow the
child. So it is going to be a program which is totally controlled by
publicly elected officials. It will be only at the discretion of
publicly elected officials who control the public educational system.
So if the public education system in Milwaukee wants to use the
Wisconsin dollars and the Milwaukee dollars, and then wants to also use
the Federal dollars, they can do that. But if the public education
system in Chicago does not want to use Federal dollars or local dollars
or State dollars in order to give parents the option, then it will not
happen.
This is not a unilateral exercise. This is an exercise which is
related to the local community making the decision, through its locally
elected officials, who control local education. So it is not some huge
scheme that is going to be settled on the community from above.
Why shouldn't we say to the city of Milwaukee: All right, you have a
program that you think is working very well. You are taking your State
tax dollars, you are taking your local property tax dollars, and you
have set up a
[[Page 6016]]
program where those dollars follow the child. But, unfortunately, you,
Milwaukee, today, under our law today, cannot take Federal dollars and
follow the child. Your Federal dollars have to go to the public school
system. They have to go to the public schools, and it is not in
relation to how many low-income kids there are in the schools--and
there can be some low-income kids who do not get any dollars for
education--but, rather, it is in relationship to some arbitrary formula
settled back in 1976 that simply happens to be a formula based on
political expediency today.
Why shouldn't we say to Milwaukee: We are not going to do that any
longer, Milwaukee. You have made a decision as to how you think you can
educate your children. We are going to let the Federal dollars follow
the local and State dollars. Specifically, in Milwaukee, if you decide
to do it, we are going to allow you to use these dollars with
portability, so the parents can have options; the same with Arizona.
That is what we are proposing. It is really not radical at all. It is
not a Federal initiative demanding we have a national program on
``vouchers,'' a word that has been made a pejorative term. It is a
program that suggests that local communities and States may decide that
parents, who have their kids in failing schools, where those schools
have failed year in and year out, can do something for their children
that will create some competition in the educational market, something
which is fundamental to the American society in producing quality. It
is a program that suggests that those school districts which have made
those decisions locally or statewide, through their elected leaders,
will have the option, with our Federal dollars, to do the same.
That idea has retained huge resistance; the resistance isn't
rational. The resistance is political. It is driven by a desire
basically not to allow competition, not to allow creativity in our
local school districts, but to drive the process of education from
Washington, so that an elite few can decide for many how education is
pursued nationally.
We are going to discuss this at greater length as we move down the
road on the education bill. But I thought it would be appropriate at
this time to at least lay down the foundation for the predicate of the
debate because it is grossly misrepresented in the press, not because
the press does not understand the issue but because the presenters to
the press maybe want to misrepresent. I believe it is appropriate to
maybe begin to make clear for the record what is being proposed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as the Senator from
Wyoming, asks unanimous consent the calling of the quorum call be
rescinded.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:30 p.m. recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer [Mr. Inhofe].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
____________________
TARGETING CHILDREN
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to draw the attention of this
body to a report that was released just today by the Federal Trade
Commission. It is a followup study to one that was done last year on
the issue of the marketing of violent, adult-rated entertainment
material to children. It was a groundbreaking Federal Trade Commission
study last year that found that much of our adult material, adult-rated
entertainment material--movies, video games, music--was adult rated by
the companies themselves, entertainment companies, the conglomerates,
and then target-marketed back to children, for example, in the Joe
Camel advertisement. It was said this was an adult-rated product,
cigarettes, but using an image to target-market that then back to
children. It turns out the entertainment community--entertainment
companies and movies and music and video games--was doing the exact
same thing.
That report was released last fall, and it was very discouraging and
disappointing that they would do this, particularly at a time when we
have so much difficulty with violence in our society, violence among
kids in our schools, killings among our teenagers.
There was a followup study released just today to that September FTC
study. What came forward is that the movie industry is doing somewhat
better about not target-marketing the adult-rated material to children,
the video game industry is doing better than the movie industry in not
target-marketing their adult-rated fare to children, and the music
industry that is putting forward these hyperviolent, suicide, violence-
towards-women lyrics has actually done nothing to change its marketing
practice and continues to directly target-market adult-rated material.
This is material the music companies themselves deem to be
inappropriate for children. They put an adult sticker, parental
advisory, on this material, and they turn around and continue, with
millions of dollars in marketing campaigns, to target children.
They are saying: Yes, we got the study last fall. We saw that. Yes,
we were target-marketing adult-rated, parental-advisory-stickered
material to children last fall. Do you know what. We are going to keep
doing it. And they have continued to do that, as shown in this study
that was just released today.
I asked that industry to come forward and change its marketing
practices: If you believe this material is inappropriate, to the point
it needs a parental advisory label on it, don't spend millions of
dollars to try to bypass parents and get the kids to buy them.
What the FTC study found is deeply disappointing. There have been
some efforts made at progress, mostly, as I noted, in the video game
industry, and more modest attempts in the movie industry. For those
efforts I offer both praise and encouragement to step up the progress.
But the report also found, as I stated, that the recording industry has
made no effort to implement any reforms--either those mentioned in the
report or the reforms that they, the recording industry themselves,
told Congress they would do. This is even more disappointing.
Before we had the hearing last fall on the marketing of violent
material to children, the recording industry stepped up and said: We
are going to change. Here is a three-point, five-point, seven-point
plan we are putting forward; we will implement these as an industry to
change our marketing practices.
They volunteered. Now what they have done is they have said: We are
not even going to do what we volunteered to Congress we would do--
change our marketing practices.
I want to read just a few statements from this report because it is
deeply disturbing:
The Commission's review indicates that the entertainment
industry had made some progress in limiting advertising in
certain teen media and providing rating information in
advertising. The industry must make a greater effort,
however, if it is to meet the suggestions for improvement
included in the Commission's Report as well as its own
promises for reform.
Specifically, the report found, ``ads for R-rated movies still
appeared on the television programs most popular with teens . . .''--
even though they are supposed to be a restricted audience for the
movie--``and the ratings reasons in ads were either small, fleeting or
inconspicuously placed.''
That was the good part of the study. The report reserved its harshest
criticism for the music industry and stated:
The Commission found that the music recording industry,
unlike the motion picture and electronic game industries, has
not visibly responded to the Commission's report, nor has it
implemented the reforms its trade association announced just
before the Commission issued its report. The Commission's
[[Page 6017]]
review showed that advertising for explicit-content labeled
music recordings routinely appeared on popular teen
television programming. All five major recording companies
placed advertising for explicit content music on TV programs
and magazines with substantial under-17 audiences.
Furthermore, ads for explicit-content labeled music usually
did not indicate that the recording was stickered with a
parental advisory label.
So not only did they market to kids, they didn't warn the parents in
the advertising that this was parental labeled material. In the
advertising, they said they were not even going to point that out to
the parents.
If you refer back to the original FTC report released last September,
you will find 100 percent of the violent music they studied was target-
marketed to kids--100 percent. Evidently the recording industry saw no
reason to change.
Soon the Senate will turn its attention to consider the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, and how to provide the best
education for all of America's children. I think for every Senator of
both parties, ensuring that America's children get a world-class
education is a top priority.
We also know one of the best measures of what a child learns is time
on task; that is, children learn what they spend their time focusing
on. That is significant because typically the American child spends
more time each year watching television and movies, playing video
games, listening to music, than he or she does in school. It makes no
sense to assume that what a child sees, hears, and does in school will
mold, shape, and enlighten his or her young mind but that what he sees,
hears, and plays in terms of entertainment will have no impact
whatsoever.
Many of the most popular songs, games, and movies actively glorify
violence and glamorize brutality. There are video games which cast
players as drug kingpins, with the game revolving around selling drugs
and killing competitors. There are movies which glamorize murder,
casting teen idols as dashing killers. And there are numerous songs
which celebrate violence against women--all of which are marketed to
children.
If being perceived is doing, we clearly have problems on our hands.
There is new evidence to suggest that exposing children to violent
entertainment not only affects their emotional and behavioral
development--their sensitivity to other's pain, their ability to
empathize, and their perceptions of the world around them--but also
their cognitive development. A professor in my alma mater of Kansas
State has done ground-breaking research on the impact that exposure to
violent entertainment has on children's brain activity. Dr. John
Murray's studies have found that in terms of brain activity, kids who
are exposed to violent entertainment have a similar experience to those
who are exposed to real-life trauma, and their brain responds in much
the same fashion.
This research, while still in its rudimentary stages, has potentially
profound implications for education. I would therefore like to announce
my intention to introduce an amendment to ESEA which calls for
increased research into the impact that exposing children to violent
entertainment--violent music, and violent video games--has on their
cognitive development and educational achievement. I hope and trust
that the Senate will adopt this amendment.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look at this interim study by
the FCC and what has happened.
I also urge the recording industry to step up and actually do what
they said they would do, which is not to market adult-rated material
and parental advisory material directly to children. It is harming our
kids. It is the wrong thing to do. I ask them sincerely to review what
they are doing in their marketing campaigns and stop this practice. It
is harmful.
I am hopeful when we have the followup study and the anniversary
report to the FCC study this fall that the recording industry will
actually step forward and do what is right.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
yield myself up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire pertaining to the
introduction of S. 759 are located in today's Record under ``Statements
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to address the Chamber. May I
ask, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in a period of morning business for 3
hours, equally divided.
Mr. DODD. Is there a limitation on the amount of time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a 10-minute limitation.
____________________
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes, if I
can, talking about the possibility of us debating and passing a
comprehensive bill on elementary and secondary education. My hope is,
of course, that in the coming days this body will do what it should
have done 2 years ago; that is, to pass legislation, as we are required
to do only once every 5 or 6 years, on elementary and secondary
education.
This morning across America 55 million children went to school. Fifty
million went to school in a public school; 5 million went to school in
a private or parochial school. We, as President Bush has said, bear a
principal responsibility to the education of all our children, but a
particular responsibility to children in our public schools, and even
further, from a Federal standpoint, a particular obligation to the most
disadvantaged children across America.
That has been our historic participation, to try to assist our
communities, our States, and most particularly families in this country
who suffer from various depravations, to see to it that their children
have an equal opportunity to success. We have no obligation, in my
view, to guarantee anybody success in America. But we do bear
responsibility to try to provide an equal opportunity to achieving
success. That is all really any of us can try to accomplish in our
public responsibilities.
So the Elementary and Secondary Education Act historically over the
years has been an effort by the Federal Government to assist and
participate in the improvement of the quality of public education in
the United States. For every dollar of education that is spent by our
public sectors--State, local governments, and the Federal Government--
out of every dollar that is spent, the Federal Government spends about
6 to 8 cents. And 93, 94 cents of the dollar spent on elementary and
secondary education comes from local property taxes in most States. I
do not know what Oklahoma does, but I know in Connecticut it is mostly
a local property tax. The State also contributes, but primarily it is
local property taxes. So the Federal Government's participation
financially is rather small when you think of it. Out of a dollar
spent, we contribute about 6 or 7 cents.
I am not going to debate this point right now, or discuss this point,
but I happen to believe in the 21st century the Federal Government
ought to be a better partner financially. I would like to see us become
someday a one-third partner--the States one-third, the local government
one-third, and the National Government one-third. What a wonderful
relief it would be--and I saw the Presiding Officer nod affirmatively
when I spoke of property taxes in Oklahoma, as is the case in
Connecticut--what a great relief it would be, putting aside education
issues, if we could say to people in Oklahoma and Connecticut: We are
going to reduce your
[[Page 6018]]
local property taxes by a third--that is where most of it goes, to
education--because your Federal Government is going to step up and be a
far greater participant in recognizing the national benefits we all
accumulate if the quality of public education in this country improves.
So that is what brings us to this particular point.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not we have some
agreements between the White House and the Senate on an Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. There has been some progress. But we are
light-years away from an agreement--light-years away from an agreement.
I do not say that with any glee. I had hoped after 2 or 3 weeks of
discussions we would be a lot closer. But reports I have read in the
newspaper and heard in the press and heard from the White House, heard
from some quarters here, that we are on the brink of some agreement, is
very far from the truth. I think it is a sad commentary, but it happens
to be a fact. Let me tell you why.
First of all, we are asking schools to do some very dramatic things--
testing, for one.
I am not terribly enthusiastic about testing as the only means of
judging performance. Testing is really not a reform; it is a
measurement of how well one does. That is all. As an educator in my
State recently said: When children have a fever, taking their
temperature three times an hour is not going to make them feel better;
medicine will. Testing every year in and year out is inclined, in my
view, to turn our schools into nothing more than test prep centers
across America.
Who is going to pay for that unfunded mandate if we jam that down the
throats of communities across the country? I am very concerned with
this mandatory testing idea as the only way to judge how students are
performing.
Many look to our schools as the source of the kids' problems when, in
fact, in my view, the problems begin before the kids ever get to
school. The problems too often are occurring at home. We do not want to
look in the mirror and see what is happening in our own homes long
before this child enters kindergarten or the first grade. We now blame
child care centers. We blame the kindergarten teacher, the first,
second, third, fourth, or fifth grade teacher because Johnny cannot
read or Johnny is not performing well.
As I said, too often the problems occur long before a child reaches
school age or enters a child care center. We need to be a bit more
realistic about what we can expect by testing kids all the time, at
some significant cost, as a mandate.
Accountability standards have been improved. I am willing to support
some of those. These are the same accountability standards that have
been developed, frankly, over the last few years. Jeff Bingaman, my
colleague from New Mexico, has been the principal author of legislation
to improve accountability standards that will get us closer to a better
way of getting schools to live up to the obligations they bear for
their students and families who send their children to these schools.
Today's children are part of the first generation that is being
raised in a truly global world. Nothing we do this year or in the
coming years is more important than how we go about providing for our
children's education. If we succeed in this endeavor, our country's
future will be very bright. If we do not succeed, it is going to be
bleak.
With that in mind, I believe we have much work to do as we prepare to
take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If this debate
turns out to be a feeding frenzy with literally dozens and dozens of
amendments being proposed every 5 minutes, with Members having little
knowledge of what they may do, we do not know what we are going to
produce.
Since we only deal with this once every 5 or 6 years, we ought to
take some time and pull this together and come forward with a bill that
truly recognizes and reflects bipartisanship, that includes the ideas
of people who spend a lot of time thinking about how to improve the
quality of education in our country, rather than one that is a jump
ball that could end up doing a lot more damage despite the press
releases and pats on the back we give ourselves on how we judge whether
or not we have lived up to our obligations.
The first issue we have to talk about candidly is the funding of
these programs. If, as the President says, education is his top
national priority--and I applaud him for that; this is what I call the
hub of the wheel: education. If we get education right, then we
increase dramatically the likelihood that every other issue will be
dealt with intelligently, and we can build public support and come up
with good answers.
If, in a democratic society, our education system begins to crumble
and fall apart, then our democratic institutions, in my view, begin to
fall apart as well. Thomas Jefferson, 200 years ago, said that any
nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was
and never possibly can be. If that was true at the outset of the 19th
century, then it is even more profoundly true as we begin the 21st
century.
Our children will not just be competing with each other--a child in
Oklahoma competing with a child in Connecticut or a child in Louisiana
competing with a child in New Hampshire--it will be a child in Oklahoma
and a child in Connecticut competing with a child in Beijing, Moscow,
South Africa, Paris, Berlin, and Australia. That is the world in which
they will have to be able to compete.
What we do this year with elementary and secondary education will be
how we begin the 21st century, giving this generation the tools it must
have to succeed as a generation and to also perpetuate the vision and
dream that each generation has embraced over our more-than-200-year
history.
Funding is important. I happen to believe if elementary and secondary
education is the top priority, then it ought to be reflected in the
funding. We know we need approximately $14 billion to meet the 6 or 7
cents out of every dollar the U.S. Government contributes to elementary
and secondary education.
What resources will we devote to title I, the most important title of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the primary mechanism
through which the Federal Government provides resources to help low-
income schools improve student achievement, resources to pay for more
teachers, new computers, curricula, and other reforms?
According to a study published this year:
Whenever an inner city or poor rural school is found to be
achieving outstanding results with its students by improving
innovative strategies, these innovations are almost
invariably funded by title I.
The President's budget provides for an additional $42 billion for all
education programs over 10 years. That is approximately $4.2 billion a
year out of a huge economy, and I will speak to that in a minute. At
the same time, the President's budget includes a $1.6 trillion tax cut
over that same 10-year period.
Think about this. The President said: This is my top priority. He has
only been in office about 100 days: This is my top priority. All during
the campaign: This is my top priority; $4.2 billion a year versus $1.6
trillion. The numbers speak louder than the rhetoric--much louder.
By the way, under the President's tax proposal, approximately $680
billion will go to people who earn more than $300,000 a year. Those are
not my numbers; those are the President's numbers: $681 billion will be
going to people who earn $300,000 or more a year. That is where the tax
cuts go. It appears the President considers tax cuts for people making
over $300,000 a year to be seven times more important than increased
funding for education in America.
I do not agree with those priorities. I do not think the President
does, or at least he says he does not. And I know the American public
does not either. In fact, 3 weeks ago, this party on a bipartisan basis
showed it does not agree with those priorities either. That is why we
supported the amendment of Senator Harkin from Iowa to decrease the tax
cut by $450 million and devote
[[Page 6019]]
that amount equally to education and debt reduction. That is why we
supported the amendment of Senator Breaux and Senator Jeffords to
reduce the tax cut to provide funding for special education.
I suspect Connecticut is not different from Oklahoma, Minnesota, or
Louisiana. When I go home every week and meet with the mayors or first-
select people--forget about meeting with the superintendents of schools
and the PTAs--I say: Tell me what you think are the top priorities. I
am going back to Washington on Monday; what can I do to help?
The answer is: Special education. You guys promised 40 percent of the
cost of this. You mandated it basically. You said: We will come up with
40 percent of the money for it. That was 25 years ago, and we have done
about, at best, 11 percent. That money is not even included in the
President's budget, although we force it down the throat of the
administration.
Special education is critically important. Contrary to what some in
the administration say: we as a nation cannot afford the increased
funding for education, the Democrats are saying we can afford it if we
really believe it is a top priority.
We are not talking about eliminating the tax cut. We are saying make
a more modest tax cut and use some of those resources for making
education the top priority that most people think it ought to be. I
believe it is a priority to help children and communities by fully
funding special education. I believe it should be a priority to provide
children with afterschool programs to enrich their lives.
I have been willing to go along with the accountability standards.
Some testing may be fine. We will work that out. But I have asked the
administration: How about school construction funds? That is something
I really care about and I think a lot of parents do, too.
Mr. President, 50 percent of our students this morning went to school
in a building built prior to 1950. Think of that: 50 percent of our
elementary and secondary kids walked into a building that was built
prior to 1950.
How about some resources for new school construction, wired to
compete in a global economy, to have access to the great libraries and
institutions all over the world? A kid who walks into a falling-apart
building is going to get a falling-apart education. That is not any
great leap of logic; that is a fact.
How about some resources for new school construction? How about the
White House saying: We will go along with you on that? I say: You want
me to support some of your ideas that I think are questionable at best.
How about supporting my ideas and those of us who advocate funds for
school construction.
Smaller class sizes: This should not take more than 5 minutes of
debate. If a teacher is in a classroom and has more than 20 kids they
are not teaching; all they are doing is managing chaos in most
instances. The teacher cannot teach; the kids cannot learn. That is not
a leap of logic; that is a fact. Every parent knows it; every teacher
knows it. We do not need to do any studies; what we need is some
resources to help poor communities across the country and others to
come up with some resources so they can reduce class size and attract
good people to the teaching profession.
We talk about the administration that says we want to test teachers
every year or every 2 years. I wonder, if I said we are going to test
all lawyers every 2 years or test all doctors every 2 years--how about
testing every Senator for 2 years? What other profession do we mandate
at the Federal level we are going to require testing every year?
If the administration tries to write that into the bill, I will not
vote for it under any circumstance. That is punitive. It doesn't
accomplish anything. It only creates great divisions within this
country. It isolated the teaching profession.
There are ways of determining whether or not teachers are doing a
good job. A lot of the States are doing a good job in making those
evaluations. Test the new ones coming in and decide whether or not they
can teach at all and use some of the creative methods developed to
determine whether or not teachers are up to the job. This rush to test
everybody, every year, is not a model of form.
We have asked for $14 billion, an increase of the elementary and
secondary education authorization. I don't think that is too much. I
don't think it is too much to demand in the context of a $1.6 trillion
tax cut. I know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with
me. That is why I will offer an amendment with Senator Collins of Maine
to authorize full funding for title I grants to schools over the next
10 years. Congress must go on record in making that, not a tax cut for
the wealthy, a top national priority. That is why this education bill
must include class size reduction funds. No one questions that smaller
class sizes and better teachers result in better student achievement.
That is why this education bill must include school construction funds.
According to the GAO, the problem of inadequate, unsafe school
facilities is a $112 million problem. The average school student goes
to a school built around the 1950s. There are issues far from being
resolved. They are not being discussed in these negotiations. Come out
to the floor, offer your amendment, and see what happens. You accept
all of our provisions and we will have a jump ball over yours.
What happened to bipartisanship? How many times did I hear we would
work things out? It is 50/50 here, almost 50/50 in the House. I heard
the President say over and over again: I want to work in a bipartisan
fashion. Bipartisanship means you take my ideas and we will see what
happens to yours? That may be enough for some people; it is not enough
for me.
This bill will not be voted on again for 5 or 6 years. For many, this
may be the last time we get to express how public education at the
elementary and secondary schools across the country ought to be dealt
with.
We took 2 weeks on campaign finance reform. We took 2 weeks last year
to name the Ronald Reagan National Airport. We can take a few weeks to
try to get this right. The American people expect nothing less. I
remember the days, not that many years ago, when an elementary and
secondary education bill passed this Chamber by votes of 92-6, 96-4.
Today we ought to try to achieve the same results and to truly work to
include these provisions which are necessary.
Democrats support real increases in proven programs. Yet the
President, who says education is his top priority, would provide
inadequate increases, $4.2 billion each year over the next 10 years, in
a budget where he advocates a $1.6 trillion tax cut.
We can do better than that. I know our colleagues agree with that
conclusion. That is why this education bill must include construction
funds, include class size reforms.
We have to speak with a clear voice and build consensus. We are not
there yet. In my view, we ought to be. But we are a long way from
achieving the kind of consensus that those who have been out there
suggest we are on the brink of; we are not. We may have to take some
time before this is resolved.
I intend to be heard on these matters. I don't want to see a bill
come up which will turn into a mess out here that allows these ideas to
go down the drain and the President claiming a bipartisan achievement
because a few Democrats go along with something that isn't adequately
funded, doesn't provide for the true reforms that are needed, and we
end up doing some real damage to kids, and then build a consensus that
our public schools have failed for this country and you have to walk
away from it. That is my fear of what will happen down the road and we
will look back to these days and rue the fact we didn't try to come
together with a truly compromised bill that reflected the attitudes of
all people in this Chamber and particularly the values and aspirations
of the people we represent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise to add my voice to my distinguished colleague
[[Page 6020]]
from Connecticut and to thank him for his outstanding leadership.
Senator Dodd and my staff have been enthusiastically involved in this
particular debate. As a member of the committee, he has been a
tremendous voice for education reform. I acknowledge the work Senator
Dodd has done with many of our colleagues on this issue and to say how
much I agree with all of the points he has raised. I will join with him
in as many hours as it takes through this week and the next week to try
to bring some of these points home to our constituents and to the
country at large.
I thank the Senator again for continuing to keep Senators focused on
not only the increases in investments that we need in education but the
targets of those investments to reach the children who need the most
help, whether in Connecticut, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or other States, for
whom we are fighting. I thank the Senator for that.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague, and I admire her work. She has been
at these issues for a long number of years both in her home in
Louisiana before she arrived in the Senate and as a Member of this
body.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me follow up by making a few points. The President
is right about one thing. That is, simply throwing more money at the
problems facing our educational system in America will do little to
create the type of reform necessary to move America forward in the new
global economy.
However, conversely what is true, passing new mandates and new
accountability and new standards and new goals for our students and our
teachers and our communities, without that important and strategic and
significant new investment in education, is a hollow and an empty
promise.
I call attention to a wonderful ad that caught my attention a couple
of weeks ago. It was put out by the Business Leader Council. We do a
lot of talking in this Chamber about budgets, taxes, futures trading,
commodities trading, and economic issues.
With my compliments to the Business Roundtable, this is the ad they
ran. It said under the picture of the bright-eyed optimistic and
hopeful children:
Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market,
where a commitment today will yield individual and national
prosperity tomorrow.
Let me repeat that:
Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market,
where a commitment today--
Not next year, not 5 years from now, but a commitment today--
will yield individual and national prosperity tomorrow.
I hope my colleagues can see the faces of these children. What jumped
out at me from the picture is the hopefulness in these children's eyes.
They look like children in every classroom in Louisiana, with smiles on
their faces, with hands in the air, anxious to answer questions
presented by their teachers, with hope and optimism for the future.
The debate we will have in this Chamber and with our colleagues in
the House will determine whether these children walk away with supplies
or whether they walk away with heads hung, shoulders stooped down,
opportunities taken from them because we have made the wrong decisions
on this floor.
That is what this debate is about. This budget is not just about
numbers. It is not just about hard, cold facts. It is not just about
statistics. It is about hearts, minds, souls, and opportunities for our
children and for our families and for this country. I am afraid if we
don't come to terms and make the best decisions we can, and good
decisions this week, these children and millions and millions like
them, and their parents, are going to be sorely disappointed.
Let me try to explain. One of the major debates we are preparing for
is what kind of investment in education should we be making. The
President has recommended what might seem to be a lot of money. When we
talk about billions and hundreds of millions of dollars, those are
large figures and people's eyes tend to glaze over because that sounds
like a lot of money. We are debating an underlying bill, a
reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, that is going to
fundamentally change the way the Federal Government helps local and
State government.
We are saying, instead of just sending you money and crossing our
fingers and hoping for results, we are now going to tie the resources
in a real and meaningful way. When we give you these moneys, we are
going to expect real performance, real excellence, and there are going
to be real consequences for failure. Schools may have to be
reconstructed, reorganized; principals and teachers may need to be
removed and we may need to have a new leadership team come in. Students
are to be tested not once every few years but every year. Teachers are
going to be held to higher standards because we believe in excellence.
We do not want to leave any child behind, and we want to make sure
that, whether you are in a poor rural area or a poor urban area or in a
wealthy urban area or wealthy rural area, that you have a chance, as a
child, to get an excellent education.
We are also going to give local officials more flexibility. We are
not going to micromanage from Washington any longer. We are not going
to specifically mandate that you have to cross every t and dot every i.
We are going to be less focused on compliance and more focused on
performance.
I agree with the President that all of those things are important and
that we should change the way Washington funds our elementary and
secondary education system. But doing that and yet not providing the
money at a high level for our schools to be able to do that is an
empty, hollow promise to our children and an unfunded mandate of
gigantic proportions to our local governments and to our States.
It would not be right. It is not what the American people want. It is
not what we should do. That is what this debate is about. Yes, we want
reform, but we must have the significant, historic, huge investments
necessary to make those reforms work.
Let me say to those who might say money doesn't matter--yes, it does.
Testing costs money. Improving teacher quality costs money. Fixing
leaky roofs costs money. Buying textbooks and computers and training
teachers and students costs money. You cannot just wish it. We can be
more efficient. We can spend our money more wisely. But in this year,
in 2001, as we begin this new century, it has to be a combination of
new reforms and new investments.
Let me share some interesting poll numbers that came out because
people might say: Senator, you feel this way, but does anybody else
feel this way? Senator Dodd feels this way, but does anyone else?
This is a Washington Post poll issued today. The question was very
basic. It says, Is the Federal Government spending too much, about
right, or too little for education? Mr. President, 60 percent of the
public says we are spending too little; 60 percent of Americans are
saying we are spending too little at the Federal level for education.
Only about 24 percent say ``about right'' and 8 percent say ``too
much.'' So 60 percent of Americans.
When we talk about at the State level, Is your State government
spending enough on education? Mr. President, 61 percent say the State
governments are spending too little on education. At the local level
you can see that number drops fairly significantly because we are
paying a greater portion at the local level.
This chart indicates to me that at the State level, but particularly
at the Federal level, people across the board--and I think this was
across regions and economic income levels--suggest our current
investment level is not sufficient to meet the challenges.
Let me also share with you, from the same poll, a question: Which is
more important to you, holding down the size of government, providing
needed services, or both?
Mr. President, 31 percent said ``holding down the size of
government,'' 62 percent, ``providing needed services.'' Does that mean
the American public
[[Page 6021]]
supports sort of a runaway government? Obviously not. But do they
support a government that has efficient programs and effective programs
and also makes investments in areas that matter to them--education
being one of them? Absolutely.
Let me show you the second chart that shows what their priorities
are. This is what the American people said in the same poll. If given
the chance, how would you spend your money and what are some of your
most important concerns? Education is at the top of the chart, 47
percent. The next closest is 34 percent, Social Security and Medicare,
making sure the resources are there to provide for Social Security and
strengthen it, and provide, hopefully, for reforms in the Medicare
system, and an expansion for prescription drugs. Health care is
important also, at 29 percent.
I want to focus on this area--education. The President, when he was
running for President, said it over and over again: Let's not leave any
child behind. I agree with him. Many, many people in this Chamber, both
on the Republican and Democratic side, do. But that is just a slogan
unless it is backed up with real dollars that actually move children
forward, that give them hope, that fulfill a promise for life to help
them develop their skills and their abilities.
Again the Business Roundtable said:
Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market--
where a commitment today will yield individual and national
prosperity tomorrow.
Let me share, for the record, a specific example from one of
Louisiana's industries, Avondale Industries. It is one of the largest
employers in Louisiana, an industry that I certainly try to help and
support, that is building some of the finest ships for our commercial
shippers as well as our national defense. It does a magnificent job,
let me add. They are now part of the Northrop Grumman Corporation,
which is one of the five remaining facilities left in this whole
country capable of building large combat vessels.
My staff called them and asked them if they could send us some
applications for jobs that they might periodically put out to try to
hire some of the individuals necessary for this work. These positions
range from electrical engineer to data entry clerk. But the one
requirement that comes through in all of these applications is that a
high school diploma is necessary. What that translates to is really an
11th or 12th grade proficiency in math. Many of these jobs are related
to calculations, to making analytical decisions based on plans and
graphs, as you can imagine.
Right now in our Nation, according to the latest data, only 30
percent of our eighth graders are functioning at the proficient level
in math. Here is an industry in my State that could employ thousands of
individuals, that puts out applications daily for a variety of
different jobs. The minimum requirement is a high school education.
Part of that is functioning just at the proficient level--not
outstanding, not the top 1 percent in the Nation, just at the
proficiency level for math.
I have to stand here as a Senator and look these industry people in
the eye and tell them that we can only create a school system that can,
at best, give them 30 percent of the eighth graders who can fill out
the application. This is not going to work. It is not going to work for
Louisiana. It is not going to work for Connecticut. It is not going to
work for New York. It is simply not going to work. And a budget that
does not fund more science teachers, more math teachers, makes a real
investment to give those kids an opportunity, is not going to help
them, their families, or Avondale.
I know the last administration asked me--it was a hard vote and I did
it--to vote for 50,000 H-1B visas to bring in people from outside this
Nation to fill jobs because we were not able to find people in America
to take these jobs. I cast that vote, but I will tell you I thought
about that vote, because when I cast that vote it allowed high-tech
industries and some industries such as Louisiana's shipbuilders to be
able to hire people from other nations.
I go home and drive through neighborhoods, walk through communities,
sit and talk to young people who have been left out because we have not
provided them the kind of education they need. They have to step aside
and watch someone from another country walk past their door, fill out
the application, and take the job that they could have had if we had
had a school system that could have given them the education necessary
for the job.
That is a tough thing for a Senator to have to do because I do not
represent any other country; I represent the United States, and I
represent Louisiana. I represent cities and communities where there are
thousands of people who cannot pass 11th grade math because we will not
put the resources and the money where they need to be to give them the
chance. Are they willing? Yes. But we have not done what we need to do.
So my message to the President and to my colleagues is, let's do it
while we can. Perhaps when we were running terrible deficits and
running up large, large bills, you could say: Look, we would love to do
it but we simply can't afford it. We are running huge deficits. We
can't keep spending money we don't have. Money doesn't grow on trees.
We can't tax people any more. So I am all for that and when we have to
cut back, let's do it.
But now that we have a historic and significant surplus, now I am
listening to people say: We have the surplus; we have the money; it is
sitting there in the bank, but we don't want to spend it on these
children. We don't want to spend it on them. They are not our future.
We want to give a huge tax cut, and we don't want to make any
investments in education.
I am not talking about the same kind of investments for the same
mediocre results. We can't keep doing it 3 or 4 or 5 percent a year,
which is what the President is recommending, and think we are going to
get a 50-percent increase in results. It doesn't work that way.
We have to make an extraordinary commitment now and put our money
where our mouth is to reach the children that we need to reach through
our schools. Yes, reform our schools with strong accountability
standards mat
ched with a true investment and targeted to the kids who need it the
most.
We do a great job sometimes in Washington inventing new programs, and
everything sounds great. And every year we invent about five, six, or
seven more programs. We need to get back to the basics and fund through
elementary and secondary education a significant amount, if not
tripling the amount of money, for title I--flexible grants that go to
places in Louisiana, New York, Connecticut, Alabama, New Mexico, or
where the communities can't raise the tax dollars because they are
relatively poor or have a limited capacity.
The Federal Government can honestly stand up and say, whether you are
little girls in Oregon or you were born into a poor, rural area or a
poor urban area, it doesn't matter because we have a system at the
Federal level that ensures, because of the way we fund education, that
the school you go to will help you pass and exceed that proficiency in
math so that you can get a job and we don't have to import someone from
another country to take the job while you collect welfare or while you
have to live on food stamps or while you tell your children they cannot
ever live in a home of their own because you can't bring home a
paycheck enough for you to be able to live in a home of your own.
I am not going to say that as a Senator because the money is in the
bank. The question is, Are we going to write the check for the kids who
need it or to our schools, or are we going to squander the surplus and
not make the investments that we need?
I will come to the floor every single day this week and next week, as
long as it takes, because I know as a Senator from Louisiana,
particularly, my State's future rests in large measure on how our
schools can function so that every child in every part of our State can
get the quality education that in some small way perhaps will make up
for what they do not always get in their homes.
[[Page 6022]]
I don't know what kind of miracle schools can achieve. I know schools
can't do it without the parents. I know there is a limit to what
schools can contribute to a child if they are not getting that support
at home. But I am tired of making excuses and hearing excuses such as
this kid can't learn because this child only has one parent or this
child can't learn because this child is poor or this child can't learn
because this child is a special education student.
I am here to tell you that every child can learn, but it takes a good
system and good investments from the Federal Government, the State
government, and the local government working in partnership with
parents.
I am about fed up with the excuses because I want to support trade
and globalization, and I want our businesses to have the workers they
need. I have to fight for children to have the opportunity. I urge our
President to please work with us. Work with the Democrats. We don't
want to waste money. We want to make a significant investment in
education, coupled with accountability, new standards and exciting
possibilities for our Nation. I most certainly want to work with him. I
believe we can make a real difference in Louisiana and Texas and many
places throughout our Nation.
In conclusion, I refer to the vision of Lyndon Baines Johnson when we
created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--a vision that would
make the dream of a quality education a reality for all children
regardless of their race, their socioeconomic status, or their gender.
This is what America is about. It is about opportunities.
In many ways, while education begins at home, it is most certainly
enhanced at the school level. We are shortchanging ourselves,
shortchanging our children, and shortchanging our future to do anything
less.
I will end saying, again, I am going to be down here every day until
we complete this debate, urging my colleagues to push hard for a
significant investment and targeting that investment to the schools and
communities that need the most help, and also helping all of our
districts to achieve success in educational excellence.
I yield any remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my colleague from Louisiana leaves
the floor, I thank her so much for saying what the issue before us
really is. We all agree that we need to make children our No. 1
priority. We all agree that there are things in our schools that need
to be improved, and we need to, frankly, underscore the things that are
working. We don't want to leave any child behind. That is President
Bush's comment.
When we get the chance to have an education bill brought here with
our friends, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and others, we want to
make sure it is not just an empty promise. I think she has fleshed this
out. I thank her very much.
In California, we test every year. It is not a big deal. We have that
reform in place. But if you test them and find they are failing and you
don't have anything in place to help them after school or during school
to give them the smaller class sizes, to give them a facility that
feels good, looks good, and is safe for them, they are not going to
improve.
When this education bill comes up, I predict that the Senate will
take that Bush bill and change it dramatically in terms of the
resources we put behind the rhetoric. There are two R's. Usually they
say there are three R's. But there is rhetoric here, then there is
requirement. Those are the two R's. The rhetoric is fine. Let's get the
requirements in there so that we can meet the needs of our children.
There is a third R--results. That is what we want to do.
How much time do I have? Is there a limit on time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 10 minutes
per speaker, and the Democrats have 40 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to know when I have 1 minute remaining of my
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
____________________
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have been amazed at the first 100 days
of the Bush administration in relation to the environment issue. When I
say the environment, I don't just throw that word out. I am talking
about air, I am talking about water, I am talking about drinking water,
I am talking about parks, and I am talking about cleaning up Superfund
sites and brownfield sites. The fact is, we have a situation on our
hands that is going to be very dangerous for our people.
Why do I say that? I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all,
we see rollbacks on very important issues. We have all heard about the
President backing off the pledge he made in the campaign to deal with
CO2 emissions which cause major problems in air quality. We
know he has backed off that.
We saw him evaluate a number of rules that were put in place under
the Clinton administration. The one that I cannot get over--there are a
number; I don't have time to get into them--is the one dealing with
arsenic. We know a few things about arsenic. It is unsafe at any level.
We know for a fact that at the current level of arsenic that is allowed
in our drinking water, if you drink out of that water supply, 1 out of
100 people will get cancer--not may get cancer, not might get cancer,
but will get cancer. We know this to be the case.
Yet this administration, in violation of the law, in my opinion--that
will be tested in the courts--reversed the Clinton administration rule
on arsenic to reduce the parts per billion that would be allowable,
where the Clinton administration had gone from 50 parts per billion to
10 and he put us back at 50 parts per billion.
Let me list some of the countries that have a standard of 50 parts
per billion. I will give you an idea of the countries that allow 50
parts per billion of arsenic: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China,
Egypt, India, and Indonesia. That is an example.
Let me list some of the countries that have the 10 parts per billion:
European Union, Japan, and Jordan.
I have to say that we owe our people safe drinking water. If we owe
them nothing else, we can argue a lot of things, but the Federal
Government needs to make sure that our people are safe.
What we have is a rollback on a number of fronts. I am just talking
about the arsenic one today. There are others. I will save them for
another day. But in addition to this, in order to pay for his tax cut
to the wealthiest people who do not need it, those over $300,000 and
$400,000 a year, those over $1 million, $2 million, or $1 billion a
year, in order to pay for that tax cut, some of those people are going
to get back a million dollars a year. This President has cut back
environmental enforcement.
Let's take a look at the key cuts that he has put in his budget. The
Environmental Protection Agency, a $500 million cut; the Interior
Department, a $400 million cut. The clean energy and nuclear
contamination cleanup--you have Dick Cheney out there saying we need
more nuclear power. He has not even figured out a way to clean up the
nuclear waste we have. They have cut $700 million, and they want more
nuclear power, which is dangerous. There is a conservation program in
the Agriculture Department. They cut that $300 million. So we see a
total of $1.9 billion in cuts to pay for a tax cut that favors the top
1 percent, leaving out 99 percent of the people.
What does that really mean? What does it mean when you cut
environmental enforcement? Let me get into that. It is very serious.
What happens is, we are going to see fewer inspectors out in the field
and fewer technical exports on the ground. We are going to see that the
Federal Government will no longer be able to be a watchdog for some of
the most serious threats to public health and the environment.
I want to give examples because people have seen the movie ``Erin
[[Page 6023]]
Brockovich.'' We all saw what happened to people in a small town in
California when that particular water system had an excess of chromium
6, which is, by the way, very dangerous. It is very lethal. By the way,
there is no Federal standard for chromium 6 in water. I have a bill
that would place into law a Federal standard, but we hear silence from
the Bush administration on that. Instead of looking at the new threats,
they are taking the old threats and making them more threatening, such
as with arsenic, by rolling back the laws.
When the American people know about this, I think they are going to
be very upset. You should not have to be able to afford bottled water
in this country to be safe. You should not have to worry that your
child is going to get cancer as a result of drinking from the water
tap.
Oh, they say, it costs money to clean it up. As my kids would say
when they were young: Dah. Yes, this is so. It costs money to clean up
an environmental problem. Do we have it? Yes, we do. Why not cap the
tax refund people earning over $1 million will get? Every year they
earn $1 million. Cap their tax refund. Take the money and clean up the
water. Get the arsenic out. Help the local people.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. But, no, let's look at these priorities. The President
wants to bring an education bill to the floor. My colleague from
Massachusetts is our real leader in the Senate, and he is going to talk
about it. There are some good ideas that have been carved out between
the parties. There is not enough money behind it. It is a false
promise.
A kid takes a test and fails the test. What are you going to do for
the kid? You can test him every 6 months. Why not test him every 2
months? What good is it if there is no one available to help that child
learn? So when the President says, ``Leave no child behind,'' where is
the beef?
When you look at the environmental budget--and you have to remember
the President stood in front of some beautiful lakes and streams and
rivers and said he was an environmentalist--how can we have prosperity
when our environment is dirty? Yet we look at the budget, which
includes the priorities of this President, and you see nothing but
destruction.
I have seen it happen in California in El Segundo. We had a refinery
that was releasing air pollution that aggravated very badly those
suffering from asthma. People were very sick. There was a lawsuit that
was brought. EPA supported it. Why? They had enforcement capability.
Chevron's own records show that it simply did not use the pollution
control technology that was required. There was not any new innovative
technology. It was already approved. They agreed to a huge settlement,
one of the biggest in history. Because of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the people got help. Chevron is going to help build and operate
a health clinic to take care of those people who experience health
problems.
EPA has the legal authority needed to ensure that serious violations
are stopped and that polluters are held accountable--which can help
deter a company from disregarding environmental protections in the
future. EPA's legal authority and resources are most often needed in
cases like this one, where the issues are very serious and the company
has substantial resources. It was not until the Federal Government
filed suit against Chevron that the company agreed to comply with the
law.
In another example, the United States, including EPA, Department of
Interior, and Department of Commerce, as well as several California
state agencies, reached settlement worth an estimated $1 billion with
Aventis to clean-up the Iron Mountain Mine located near Redding, CA, in
October of 2000.
The State of California requested help from the Federal Government in
this enormously complex case explaining that they had ``exhausted all
practicable enforcement action against the potential defendants.''
Prior to the settlement, this mine discharged an average of one ton
of toxic metals per day into the Upper Sacramento River, a critical
salmon spawning habitat and a central part of California's water
system. As recently as 5 years ago, the site dumped the equivalent of
150 tanker cars full of toxic metals into the Sacramento River during
winter storms. At one point, workers had left a shovel at the site in a
green liquid flowing from the mine and it was half eaten away over
night.
I have a photograph of a disposal area on the site that gives you a
feel for just one part of the damage at this very large and complex
site.
This site dumped approximately one quarter of the total copper and
zinc discharged into our nation's water from industrial and municipal
sources throughout the United States.
This case is another good example of the kind of cases a strong EPA
enforcement program is needed for--sites that are large, that can
overwhelm State programs, even in a State with a well developed and
active environmental program like California, and sites with very large
corporate interests involved.
When you take a close look at EPA's past enforcement efforts you see
who benefits from cuts in enforcement. Serious polluters can take big
hits to their pocketbooks when they are caught. A cut in enforcement is
worth a great deal to these violators, but enforcement cuts come at the
expense of public health and safety as well as the environment.
The President's proposed budget cuts the heart out of agricultural
conservation programs, like the Wetland Reserve Program which is
eliminated--cut from $162 million in fiscal year 2001 to $0 in fiscal
year 2002. This program was first authorized in 1990, during the first
Bush administration, to provide long term protection for wetlands.
The President has collected an incredible assortment of cuts in
environmental protection--all sources for the tax cut that fails to
take into account the priorities of the American people, like
conservation and environmental protection. Before deciding on what the
``right size'' of the tax cut should be, the President should consider
the impacts of these cuts. California provides some valuable examples
of the conservation benefits we will lose if the President's budget
cuts are implemented.
The Wetland Reserve Program in California has helped restore a
portion of the 4.5 million acres of wetlands lost to agricultural
conversion and development in our State. In addition to providing
habitat for migratory birds, other wetlands restoration benefits
include improvement of water quality, flood control, sediment abatement
and recharge of groundwater. California is the primary path of the
``Pacific Flyway''--approximately 20 percent of all waterfowl pass
through California's Central Valley. At the present time, the federal
Wetland's Reserve Program, zeroed out in the President's budget, is the
largest wetland protection program in California.
More than 60,000 acres to date have been protected in this program in
California. There are more than 100 applicants on a waiting list to
protect and restore their agricultural lands. One of the strongest
parts of the program are the partnerships with not-for-profit
organizations like California Waterfowl and the Nature Conservancy, as
well as the private landowners themselves.
I have a photograph of one of the successful restorations
accomplished by a conservation easement under the Wetland Reserve
Program. The site is in Colusa County, CA and was enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program in 1992. It is approximately 195 acres of
seasonal wetlands that provides both winter and brood habitat for
migrating and nesting waterfowl, shorebirds, migratory songbirds, and
other wildlife. This easement is part of a 1,000-acre complex of
wetlands and upland nesting habitat adjacent to the Sacramento River
and lies in the middle of the largest migratory waterfowl corridor in
North America. It is owned by the Audubon Society and acts as a
sanctuary for wildlife.
[[Page 6024]]
Given the value and community support for agriculture conservation
programs, I simply cannot see how the President can justify eliminating
these kinds of programs to increase his tax cut.
Mr. President, let me sum up. We have a tax cut that was pledged as a
campaign promise 2 years ago because Steve Forbes was in a debate with
George Bush and said: I am for this $1.4 trillion tax cut. Times have
changed. The economy has turned around since George Bush has become
President. We have problems. People are not optimistic about the future
of this country.
What does that mean? It means that a sensible person--this is my
view--would sit back and say: I want to do this, and it is on my
agenda, but maybe I can't do it all at once. Maybe I will cut it in
half. Maybe I am going to invest in the people, invest in children, so
that we have an afterschool program for every child, so that we have
safe drinking water for every child, so that we know people are not
going to get sick from air pollution.
We talk about our kids. Every one of us cares about kids. That is one
of the reasons we are Senators. Do you know the leading cause of
admissions in hospitals for children is asthma? They miss school. So
you have to connect the dots. If you take out massive sums of money
that you are going to transfer to the top 1 percent of income earners,
forgetting 99 percent--everyone else--really, you have given 43 percent
of the tax cut to the people in the highest income, and then you say
you do not have any money to enforce the Clean Air Act or the Clean
Water Act. You roll back the laws on arsenic. You take away the money
to clean up nuclear contamination, while you are calling for more
nuclear plants. You bring out an education bill that is so short of
money that it is an empty promise and an unfunded mandate for our
States. It is an unfunded mandate because we are forcing them to test,
and yet we do not have enough to help those children.
Connect the dots. If you build a budget around an unrealistic,
dangerous tax cut, it is going to take us back to deficits. You are not
going to be able to pay down the debt. You are not going to be able to
do the basics for our children. You are not going to be able to clean
up the environment. And you have a problem. It is no wonder this
economy is a little at sea, because this budget does not add up and it
does not make sense.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
____________________
THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments this
afternoon to bring our colleagues up to date on where we are on the
Elementary and Secondary Education legislation. Over these past 2 weeks
we have had an ongoing exchange of ideas and views with the
administration and our colleagues. We have been trying to continue to
find common ground and to make important progress.
We are very much aware that this is an issue that is not only a high
priority for the President of the United States, but also that it is a
high priority for every family in this country, and certainly among the
highest priorities for those of us on this side of the aisle.
We welcome the fact that we have a President who has placed education
at the top of his agenda. Eight years ago when the Democrats lost
control of the Senate, one of the first actions the Republicans took
was to rescind some of the funding of elementary and secondary
education. We also fought against attempts by our Republican friends to
abolish the Department of Education. But that was then and this is now.
We welcome the opportunity to find common ground so we can move ahead
and make a difference for the children in this country and for the
families across the Nation.
As we start off our debate on this issue, we have to understand the
importance of preparing a child to learn, even prior to the time they
enroll in elementary school. This is an area of very considerable
interest on both sides of the aisle.
Our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, has been a leader on
these children's issues. Senator Jeffords has made this a special area
of concern. And Senator Stevens has been very involved in early
intervention for children. It is enormously important to continue to
ensure a national commitment to have the nation's children ready to
learn, as we did and as the Governors did in Charlottesville some years
ago.
I am hopeful we will be able to do that in a bipartisan way in
Congress with solid legislation. We still have a ways to go, but we
have made progress. We also have to understand the very serious and
significant gap that still exists with regard to preparing children for
grades K through 12th.
We are still falling behind. We fund Early Start programs at
approximately 10 percent for the earliest types of intervention. And
for programs from birth to 3 years of age, we are down to either 2 or 3
percent. This is an area of enormous importance. We are trying to help
many children across the nation with this program. Hopefully, it will
make a difference.
Unfortunately there are going to be many children who will still fall
through the cracks unless we come back to revisit public policy and
resources for early intervention programs.
It is all part of a mosaic. We must give our full attention to these
efforts which are extremely important in preparing children for
elementary school.
I was disappointed that the administration zeroed out a very modest
downpayment in the Early Child Development Program that had bipartisan
support in the 106th Congress from Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Dodd,
and Kerry, many others on the Health Education Labor and Pensions
Committee, and myself.
We have reached some very important agreements on the reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, however, differences
over funding remain. We are in the process of negotiating language for
the legislation, and I expect that the earliest we could have this
legislation is late Wednesday or Thursday.
Money is not the answer to everything, but it is a pretty good
indication of the Nation's priorities.
Under the President's bill, there is a reduction in resources of $69
billion for the Nation. However, we will only see an extremely modest,
somewhat less than $3 billion, increase in the funding for programs
which are targeted on the neediest children in this country. It is that
kind of disparity which is of considerable trouble to many of us.
We agree that every child should be tested each year in grades three
through eight--not as a punishment, but so parents and educators know
where every child stands and what more needs to be done to help them
improve and achieve their full potential.
We agree to create tough standards for schools and hold them
accountable for improving student achievement.
We agree that where schools fail, bold steps are necessary to turn
them around, including requiring alternative governance arrangements.
We agree parents deserve more public school options to ensure their
children get a quality education.
We agree that literacy programs should be expanded so every child
learns to read well in the early years.
We share these priorities with President Bush and believe these
reforms will make a difference in our communities.
We are still working on how to increase the flexibility while
maintaining targeting and accountability. It is important that any
additional flexibility is tied to strong accountability, and strong
targeting to the neediest communities. We want to ensure that States
and school districts do not ignore the children who need our help the
most.
We are also working hard to increase accountability and support for
teachers. States and districts should be held accountable for putting
qualified teachers in every classroom, particularly in the neediest
schools. They
[[Page 6025]]
should also have to provide professional development and mentoring
support for teachers so that teachers can make these new tough reforms
work.
We are also working to ensure that after-school programs are expanded
so that more children have the opportunity to catch up with their
schoolwork if they have fallen behind.
We are working to ensure parent involvement and that parent
involvement is a cornerstone for all the new reforms.
We are working to ensure schools and districts and States are held
accountable to the public through mandatory report cards that include
important information about how well their schools are doing.
We are working to ensure that the Class Size Reduction Program is
continued so children can get the individual attention they need to
succeed.
We are working to continue the School Renovation Program so
communities can ensure children are learning in safe, modern school
buildings.
We hope we can address all these issues and come to a bipartisan
consensus on them.
We must also know that reforms minus resources equals failure. You
cannot say education is your top priority and not put enough resources
in the budget to do the job.
We are disappointed in the President's budget. According to OMB,
President Bush's budget contains only a $669 million increase next year
for elementary and secondary education programs. That is an increase of
one-fifth of one percent of what we are spending on our public schools
today at the national, State, and local levels; we are spending $350
billion a year.
Testing and accountability are important, but they are only the
measures of reform, they are not reform themselves.
Investment without accountability is a waste of money, but
accountability without investment is a waste of time.
We need the resources to make sure that slick, easy, and quick tests
that have mostly multiple choice questions and which cost $3 or $4 will
not be developed. We want to make sure we have a quality teacher
teaching a quality curriculum to a quality test. That takes investment.
It is not just the money, it is the resources to do the job: well-
qualified teachers, thoughtful tests, good curriculum, the examination
of the tests and reporting back in a timely way.
At the current time, we are meeting only about 20 to 22 percent of
the supplementary services that are necessary for children. If we are
not going to have a significant increase in resources, we are not going
to be able to provide the good quality supplementary services for those
children who need them.
We know with a very modest increase--about $1 billion--we could
provide 1.6 million children with quality supplemental after-school
academic opportunities. Even if you take what was paid last year and
adding about $850 million this year, we are still only reaching about a
third of all latchkey children, ages 8 to 13, who go home alone in the
afternoon.
Resources are important because they are translated into substantive
issues that make a difference in advancing the quality of education for
children.
This chart compares the investments in ESEA programs for fiscal year
2001 to the Administration's 2002 proposal. In 2001, funding for ESEA
programs increased by $3.6 billion or a 24.2 percent. This
Administration has requested an increase of $669 million, which is only
a 3.5 percent increase.
Even with their willingness to go higher, it does not come close to
the increases in 2001. This recognizes that we are only reaching one-
third of all of the children who are disadvantaged or eligible under
the Title I program.
Look at the appropriations for the Department of Education. In 2001
there was an 18.2 percent increase, $6.5 billion. The Bush budget for
all the education, is increased by 5.9 percent or $2.5 billion.
The Department of Education over the period of the last 5 years shows
a 12.8-percent increase in resources. However the proposed budget
starts with a 5.9-percent increase in the Department of Education.
This is a time with record surpluses, when we are going to give back
$69 billion in tax reductions. There is a great deal of talk about
investing in education, but we are still not putting in the resources.
This chart is the State of Texas education equation. It shows that
from 1994 to 2002, school funding went from $16.9 billion to $27.5
billion, a 57-percent increase under Governor Bush. Interestingly, we
see an alarming increase in student achievement, from 56-percent of the
students performing at a proficient level on the State test in 1994 to
80-percent of students performing at a proficient level in 2000--
showing you cannot educate on the cheap.
The next chart shows the difference between the proposal the
Democrats support and the Bush budget. We know there are 10,000 failing
schools that need to be turned around. The best estimate is that it
costs $180,000 to turn around a school. There are 57 different,
accepted, scientifically evaluated ways in which schools can be
restructured and organized that have been found to have been
successful. Taking 10,000 schools and $180,000--that is, $1.8 billion--
to turn around the schools that we know are in need. With the other
proposal, effectively, we are leaving 7,556 schools behind.
We know what needs to be done. We know we have failing schools, and
we have ways of turning them around. We know we have unqualified
teachers, and we know what needs to be done to make them qualified. We
know we have an inadequate curriculum, and we know what needs to be
done to strengthen curriculum. We understand what will benefit the
children and the teachers and we know how to strengthen their needs
with supplementary services.
If we don't have the supplementary services, trained teachers,
effective tests, modern and safe schools, and smaller class sizes, then
we are failing ourselves. We fail ourselves when we fail to provide the
resources to ensure the nation's children with a sound education.
Finally, I hope during this debate we have some discussion about the
issue of IDEA. Full funding for IDEA will help immeasurably in allowing
special needs children to get additional resources.
I hope we can move ahead with ESEA and get the commitment of
essential resources to meet these important needs. In doing the job, we
need to give children across the nation the best opportunities which we
all understand they deserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton speak
next for 15 minutes and I be allowed to speak after for 10 minutes, and
the Republicans then be allowed to have the time they need to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Minnesota. I associate myself with the remarks of the education Senator
from Massachusetts who so eloquently laid out our dilemma, the dilemma
that will be occupying the Senate as we move forward on this very
important debate.
People always talk about important debates, but it is fair to say as
we debate, we will set educational policy for our Nation for the next 7
years. There is hardly a subject we can think of that will have more
direct impact on our families, on our communities, on our economy, and
especially on our children. We are setting the stage for determining
how much we as a nation will do to make good on the promise of a
quality education for all children, and particularly for our country's
neediest children.
I first became involved in education reform back in 1983 with the
issuance of the report called ``A Nation at Risk,'' which was issued
under President Reagan's watch. Many took that call to action very much
to heart that we were a nation at risk. We began
[[Page 6026]]
looking for ways to improve education, to provide more resources to
provide more accountability measures. We have made progress over those
last years.
When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was last reauthorized
in 1994, we sent a strong signal that although education was absolutely
a matter of local concern, it had to be a national priority; that we
all had to recognize we were failing our children by not providing
adequate educational resources and by not expecting them to do the very
best they could do. We put a high priority on academic standards, and
we worked to help teachers and administrators, parents, and communities
improve education.
The results of this strong Federal response to local and State
educational demands has been heartening. Mr. President, 49 States plus
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have developed State standards
and are working to implement them. These reforms are producing results.
We often only focus on the negative side of the ledger about how much
we still have to do. I give some credit to the children and the young
people, our students, and their parents, and especially their teachers,
because we have seen progress. Reading and math scores for fourth
graders in our highest poverty school districts have improved by nearly
a grade level from 1994 to today. SAT scores are on the rise. More
students than ever are attending college.
We cannot rest there. We know there is still far more to be done. We
have too many children, particularly in our underserved urban and rural
districts, who are not reading at grade level. We have too many
children being taught by uncertified teachers, in overcrowded
classrooms, in crumbling school buildings. We cannot stand by idly
while these conditions persist. The issue is, what is the best way to
address them? How better can we equip parents, teachers, communities,
and our students to meet the tests of the 21st century?
I applaud President Bush for calling for greater accountability. I
agree with him on the importance of that. I was among the very first in
our Nation, in Arkansas in the early 1980s, to call for the testing of
students and the testing of teachers because I believed then we had to
know what we didn't know in order to make progress. We couldn't just
pretend that everything was fine and engage in social promotion and not
face up to the fact that we had children graduating from high school
who couldn't read a job application. We had teachers who had been
themselves passed through the education system who were unprepared to
teach the substance of what it was they were assigned to teach.
Accountability is key, to me. I have been a strong supporter of that.
In fact, I welcome the Republicans and I welcome the Bush
administration which has gone forward with accountability measures that
are like the measures Democrats have proposed for several years. Many
on the other side of the aisle resisted such approaches for many years.
In fact, they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. So I
applaud my colleagues on the Republican side for the progress they have
made in moving toward a common recognition that this is a national
priority that must be beyond politics and partisanship.
The accountability that is in the bill that is proposed would ask
that we test our children every year from third to eighth grade. That
is designed to ensure that they are meeting high standards. But here is
where the rubber really hits the road. If all we do is order more
tests, if we do not combine those tests with the resources that are
needed to help the children who have been left behind, then we will
have, at best, a hollow victory and I believe, worse than that, we will
have committed educational fraud on our children, our teachers, and our
country.
The Bush plan orders more testing while providing only half the funds
needed to design and implement these tests. What would this mean to the
State of New York, for example? It would mean that of the $16 million
that is estimated to have to be spent to comply with these new Federal
requirements, our State would only get $8 million. So we would have to
find 8 million more dollars, take it out of something else--from hard-
pressed school districts, from teacher pay, from whatever other
important objective we are already trying to meet. We should not be
passing on an unfunded mandate to our States.
If it is a national priority, if it is a priority for this
administration to order these tests, then the Federal Government ought
to pay for these tests and make sure that, as the Senator from
Massachusetts pointed out, they are good tests; they are quality tests;
they are not just make-work kinds of tests.
Passing tough new accountability standards without the resources to
help our schools and students is similar to handing out thermometers in
the midst of an epidemic. The thermometers certainly can tell us that
there are a lot of sick people, but they do absolutely nothing to help
people get better. Unfortunately, the administration's proposal has
plenty of thermometers but precious little medicine to help our schools
improve. The administration has not even yet committed to providing the
Federal funds necessary to marry accountability with student
achievement.
We already know that despite the rhetoric, this is not an increase of
more than 11 percent; it is only 5.9 percent because the administration
tried to count money that had been appropriated last year. We are glad
to have that money, but let's have honest accounting about how much
more money is going in. A 5.9-percent increase barely keeps up with
inflation and population increases.
What also does it mean on the school level? Let's focus and ask
ourselves: If we pass this accountability measure, and everybody goes
home, pats themselves on the back, there is a big press conference, and
a big signing ceremony, what have we really done to help the districts
such as the ones I worry about in the State of New York?
In New York City, for example, we are facing a severe teacher
shortage. The city will need to hire approximately 40,000--that is
right, 40,000--teachers over the next 4 years. In addition, the
district is under a court order to place those certified teachers it
hires in the lowest performing schools. That makes sense because right
now we have uncertified teachers, ill equipped to teach, teaching the
children who need the best teachers. So the idea, which is a good idea,
is let's put the certified teachers in the schools where the children
need them the most.
But what has happened? Last week we learned from the chancellor of
the New York City schools that the certified teachers turned down the
jobs in the hard-to-teach schools. Why? Because those are the schools
that are already overcrowded; those are the schools that are crumbling;
those are the schools that hardly have a book in the library; those are
the schools without the computers connected by the cables they need to
be able to be functional, let alone to be accessible to the Internet.
We cannot in good conscience demand that school districts hire
certified teachers without providing the resources to help these hard-
pressed districts recruit and retain these teachers. And we have to do
more to make these schools attractive to certified teachers.
Answer me, why you would go into a very difficult school to teach
children who are under lots of stress at home and in their
neighborhoods if the school is not well equipped to give you the
resources you need to try to do a good job with those children?
I will be working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
introduce a bipartisan teacher recruitment amendment. We all know if we
do not place the recruitment of our teachers at the top of our national
agenda we will have school districts that are barely able to open their
doors in the next couple of years. We will be asking people literally
to come off the streets and start teaching because we will not have the
teachers we need. I meet people all the time who want to be teachers,
but they
[[Page 6027]]
will not, they cannot, and they should not work under the conditions
under which many of our teachers are asked to function.
I am also concerned about the proposal the President includes called
Straight A's. This is a demonstration project that would give 7 States
and 25 school districts the chance to block grant Federal dollars.
People are often talking about how important it is to give authority
back to the States, and I agree with that in most instances. But we
know from years of education research that block granting funds--which
means taking the Federal dollars and sending them to the State
capitol--means that those dollars do not get to the students and the
schools that need them the most in the amount that they should. They
get siphoned off in the bureaucracy of the State capitol. They get sent
to other places that do not need them but, for political purposes, have
the influence to get them. We should be targeting those hard-earned
Federal dollars to those school districts and those students who are so
far behind.
Right now in New York we know, because of a court decision, that the
children in New York City do not get their fair share of education
funding. So we should do everything possible to get the dollars to the
students who need them the most in the schools where the teachers have
a chance to try to help them.
We also know from research that smaller class sizes make a huge
difference, and the Class Size Reduction Initiative has worked wonders.
We now have teachers in New York who are federally funded who are
helping to lower class size. We have already seen positive results from
the school achievement scores.
We also know that construction funding to help schools repair their
buildings and modernize them and even construct the buildings they need
is very necessary. These two important programs, class size reduction
and school construction, are eliminated for all purposes in the Bush
administration proposal. I say this is a mistake, and I ask the
administration, with all respect, to please reconsider this decision.
The administration says that reducing class size with Federal dollars
and helping to construct and repair schools are not Federal
responsibilities. I know they are not totally Federal responsibilities,
but I do not think in today's world they are also solely local
responsibilities. The districts that need the help the most are not the
districts like the one I live in where, with very high property taxes
from affluent people, the children have everything they could possibly
dream of. But in so many districts, suburban taxpayers cannot pay
another penny to fix their schools and do what is necessary to have up-
to-date labs. In many rural districts they do not have the tax base to
do that, and in many urban districts they don't have the dollars
because they don't get their fair allocation from the State, and they
cannot tax themselves to be able to meet the needs of children for whom
English is not their first language, who come to school with
undiagnosed mental illnesses, who live in a system of deprivation and
violence and who cannot perform at the same level as the children in my
district.
Let's have a shared responsibility. That was the whole idea behind
the Class Size Reduction Initiative and School Construction Initiative.
If education is to be a national priority, let's invest in what we know
works--and we know reducing class size and providing good facilities
actually works--to make for better education.
I hope we will continue in the spirit that we began in the education
committee as we marked up this bill, in the negotiations that are
currently ongoing with the administration. But I am very concerned that
this particular proposal falls way short of what we need to be doing.
It falls short for a very simple reason. The administration would
rather invest in a large, fiscally irresponsible tax cut than in the
education of our children and particularly those who are most needy in
rural and urban districts.
I hope this will be reconsidered because this failure to properly
fund education, to me, is disappointing at a time when we have
surpluses, when we do not have to squander these surpluses on large tax
cuts that will go disproportionately to the already wealthy whose
children already attend schools that have all the computers, all the
bells and whistles, all the extra help they could possibly have.
Let's, instead, take a moment and step back. I hear a lot about the
greatest generation. My parents were part of the greatest generation,
the World War II generation. I think they probably have to take a
second seat to the greatest generation being the Founders of our
Country. But there is no argument that those who survived the
Depression, won World War II, and set the stage for winning the cold
war, were among the greatest if they were not the greatest generation
our country has ever seen.
We have been living off the investments and sacrifices of our parents
and our grandparents for more than 50 years. My father, who is a rock-
ribbed Republican, voted for higher school taxes because he knew the
education of his children depended upon good schools. We invested in
the Interstate Highway System. We set a goal to send a man to the Moon.
We had big dreams, and we worked to fulfill those dreams.
Today, at the beginning of this new century, it is up to us to make
the decisions, the hard decisions to invest in our children's
education. And shame on us if we do not make the right decisions. We
can pass a bill that is filled with testing and sounds good but 10
years from now we will still have children in overcrowded classrooms
and crumbling buildings who are being deprived of certified, qualified
teachers, and we will wonder what went wrong.
Let's instead be sensible about the best practices that we know work.
We have research. We have practical experience. We know what needs to
be done. The issue is, do we have the political will to make those
decisions?
I support working hand in hand with the administration in a
bipartisan way, with the parents and teachers and community leaders of
our country, to make education a real national priority. But I cannot--
I could not--support a bill that is a hollow, empty promise.
Let's do both. Let's increase accountability so we get better results
by making sure we have the resources to hold our children and our
teachers accountable. If we do that, then we will be setting the stage
to leave no child behind. If we do any less, then I think we have
missed a historic opportunity.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator one or two
quick questions?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have been very moved by what she said. On the
question of accountability and then the whole issue of unfunded
mandates, one argument I heard the Senator make was we have to provide
the funding for the actual tests to make sure these are high quality,
which means we should not confuse accountability, testing, and
standardized tests as being one and the same thing; is that correct?
Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it is.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The second point I want to make and I want to be sure
we are clear about is that it would also be an unfunded mandate, even
if you provided the funding for the administration of the testing,
without the investment in our children and our schools to make sure
each and every child had the same chance to achieve and do well in
these tests. Then I tried to remember what you described it as. You
said it was hollow, and you said it would be an educational fraud. That
is fairly strong language. I will put the Senator on the spot, but
could I ask her why she feels so strongly about this point?
Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly. My feelings go back many years. As the
Senator knows, children have been my passion for more than 30 years. I
have worked on improving and reforming education for nearly 20 years. I
know how difficult it is, today, to try to help many of our children
achieve educational competence.
The reason for that is that we are not living in the same world in
which the
[[Page 6028]]
Senator and I grew up. It is harder to teach our children. Our children
come to school with more problems and more stress. They are exposed to
many more things than we ever faced.
We have to understand that if we don't really provide the resources
to reach the children as they are today, not as we wish they would be,
not as we thought they were back when I was sitting there with my hands
folded and listening to every word, but as they are today with all the
other pressures that are on families and children, then we are not
going to have the results and the kind of achievement to which the
Senator from Minnesota is referring.
But there is no reason we have to make this choice. It is not an
either/or choice. We have the resources to assist our local districts
so they do not have to reach any deeper. Many of the districts from my
State can't afford to raise their property taxes any more.
I was on Long Island last night talking to a group of about 1,000
people. I explained to them, if we have this large Federal income tax
cut, and then we have these unfunded mandates for education, where is
the rubber going to hit the road? It is going to hit the road in the
local property tax levies.
I would rather be, I am sure, part of an administration that gets to
take credit for cutting income taxes than the poor souls down at the
local level having to vote to raise property taxes in order to meet the
mandates they have put on them. I think we should not be raising false
hopes. We should be looking at how we help every child be successful.
Mr. WELLSTONE. When I go back to Minnesota, I try to be in the
schools every 2 weeks. For the last 10\1/2\ years there has been
concern about the testing, especially standardized tests; people have
to kind of teach within a straightjacket. But what about the issue? I
ask the Senator from New York because this is also, I think, part of
her passion and part of her work. I hear a lot about two other things:
The IDEA program, which isn't within ESEA, but it seems to me that we
have to be very clear with some kind of trigger amount so that testing
doesn't take its place unless we fully fund IDEA, because that is
really a threat and a strain that a lot of districts feel. The other
one is prekindergarten.
With all due respect, I want to get the Senator's opinion. If we
start testing kids at age 8, I might argue at age 12 or 13, ``Schools,
what have you done?'' But at age 8, I would argue that much more of
what will explain how that child is doing is what happened to the child
before kindergarten. Where is the administration, if the administration
is going to talk about leaving no child behind? Where is the community
in early childhood development to make sure that these children are
kindergarten ready? Shouldn't that all fit within what is defined as
reform?
Mrs. CLINTON. I think my colleague is absolutely right, because if we
are looking at the comprehensive reform, we cannot leave out the
funding of IDEA. We can't leave out doing something to help parents
understand their obligations to be a child's first teacher and provide
quality preschool.
I hear so much about the IDEA program, otherwise known as the special
education program. I hear it mostly in suburban districts,
interestingly enough, because suburban districts have activist parents
and they know the law. The law is that we have to provide an education
for every child. And I support that law. It was the first project I
ever did for the Children's Defense Fund. I went door to door in
communities back in--I hate to say--1973 to find out where the children
were because they weren't in school. We found a lot of children with
disabilities who were being kept out of school.
I am a 100-percent supporter of mainstreaming our children and giving
every child a chance. But we are bankrupting a lot of our suburban
school districts. We are saying you have to provide special treatment
and education for children who need it and deserve it. If that means
you have to shut down the band program or only have one physics session
or do away with art, that is the tough choice to make.
The Federal Government said in the 1970s that you have to provide
this education. Furthermore, it is not only, as our colleague Tom
Harkin likes to say, a Federal mandate, but it is a constitutional
mandate to provide this quality education. The Federal Government is
going to tell districts they have to provide special education. Where
is the full funding so suburban districts and all other districts can
try to keep up with their expenses?
I could not agree more with the second point the Senator made. Those
of us who have been parents read to our children. We take them to
museums. We get them a library card. We monitor their television. We
worry about any kind of childcare arrangements. We know those early
years make a difference. Why don't we make a commitment based on the
resources we now have about the brain to do more to provide quality
preschool opportunities both at home and outside the home so that more
children can come to school ready to learn? That might be the very best
investment we could make in terms of long-term academic success.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New York.
In the time I have remaining, I would like to make the point that I
think this is truly a matter of values and truly a matter of
priorities. Either we are going to be talking about close to $2
trillion in tax cuts--most of it Robin Hood in reverse. Again, if
somebody wants to prove me wrong, about 40 percent of the benefits go
to the top 1 percent of the population.
Any day of the year, I would stake my reputation back in Minnesota on
being able to say, as opposed to those Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts,
that I am going to be a Senator from Minnesota who is going to insist
that if we are going to say a piece of education legislation is the
best, we had better make it the best for our children. That means there
is a commitment to making sure kids are kindergarten ready. That means
we live up to our commitment to fully funding the program for children
with special needs, which is getting to the 40-percent level and not
the 14-percent level. That means we ought to be moving toward fully
funding the title I program for kids who come from disadvantaged
backgrounds. That means we ought to be funding afterschool programs and
we ought to be talking about teacher recruitment. We ought to be
talking about how we can provide the supportive services.
I say to Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, that you will rue
the day you voted for a piece of legislation that mandated that every
school and every school district in your State every single year had to
have tests, starting as young as age 8 and going to age 13, and you did
not at the same time vote to provide the resources so that those
teachers and those schools and those school districts and, most
important of all, the children had the tools so they could succeed and
do well.
I will tell you something. I hope my colleagues on the Democratic
side will draw the line on this question. It seems to me that before we
proceed to this kind of legislation, before we talk about a piece of
legislation as being reform, we should say we want to make sure there
is a commitment of resources. Before we have this mandate on all of our
States and all of our schools, we ought to make sure we have provided
the funding. If we can't do that, then this becomes very hollow. If we
can't do that, then this piece of legislation I believe does nothing
but set up the schools and the kids and the teachers for failure.
My colleague was saying get it down to the school level. I sometimes
think what we have been doing has a sense of unreality to it. If you go
down in the trenches, and especially it you go to the schools, a lot of
the inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas, you have kids on free or
reduced lunch programs. You have homes where sometimes they have to
move two or three times a year. You have schools that are crumbling,
schools that don't have the resources, schools that don't have the
laboratory facilities, and schools that don't have the textbooks. Now
what you are saying is you are going to have tests and state with
precision the obvious: Guess what. Children who come to school hungry,
children who come from families who don't have adequate housing or are
even homeless, children who
[[Page 6029]]
are not kindergarten ready, children who do not receive all of the good
stimulation and all of the nurturing that they need to have before
kindergarten, those children who come to schools without the
facilities, without the best teachers, without the salaries for the
teachers, we are going to find out through tests that those children
and those schools aren't doing as well as a lot of other schools which
have all the resources in the world with which to work.
That is what the test does. Absolutely nothing--not without the
resources.
I can say this from the floor of the Senate. It sounds a little
jarring. But in a lot of ways I think the best way you can move to
vouchers is to design a system where you guarantee over the next 4 or 5
years that many schools are not going to succeed because you don't give
them the resources. Then you can state with precision the obvious; that
is, the children who come from low- and moderate-income backgrounds
with the least amount of help to do well are continuing to do poorly.
The schools are continuing to do poorly because they do not have the
resources. Then you use that as a reason for an all-out broadside
attack on public education.
Some of the harshest critics of these teachers in these schools
couldn't last an hour in the classrooms they condemn. I have never met
a teacher and I have never met a parent who has said to me what we need
is more and more tests, tests, tests.
I have had a lot of people in Minnesota talk to me about the IDEA
program, the title I program, afterschool programs, how we can make
sure kids are kindergarten ready, and how we can make sure we have the
best teachers and get the resources to the teachers and have the
support for the teachers and the kids.
We have a budget from the President of the United States of America
who says education is his No. 1 priority, and it is a tin cup budget.
How are you going to realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a
tin cup budget? At the moment, I agree with Senator Clinton. I think it
is an educational fraud bill. Without the resources to back the
rhetoric, it becomes nothing more than symbolic politics with
children's lives.
I will oppose it with all of my might until we get resources to
invest in our children--all of our children.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15
minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we will be turning to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill soon. I want to speak a
bit about the subject of education.
This will be an interesting debate and one that is very important for
our country. All of us come to the Senate from different backgrounds
with different interests. I happen to come from a small town of about
300 people in the southwestern corner of North Dakota, down by the
Montana and South Dakota border. I graduated in a high school class of
nine.
That little high school in Regent, ND, where I went to school, held
its last prom this year because the high school is not going to be
continuing any longer. In order to have a prom in a school that small,
they have to gather a fair number of classes. That is the only way to
have a prom in a school that size.
I was saddened to read that, because of the challenges facing rural
areas of North Dakota, schools are seeing fewer and fewer students
coming into the school system. In my State, we had 16 counties that had
fewer than 25 births in a year, and in almost all of those counties
they have at least two school systems. Divide up those births 5 or 6
years from now and see how many children are going to enter first grade
and see what the challenges are for those schools. They are very
significant.
Despite having gone to a small school, I always felt I got a very
good education. It was not a fancy school. It was a school with a
library no larger than a coat closet, but we had teachers who cared,
and it was a school that provided an awfully good education.
Even though all of us have different backgrounds, we also share
common goals. All of us want the same thing for our country. We want
our country to do well, our children to be well educated, our country's
economy to grow and provide expanded opportunities for people.
In this debate, we are going to talk a lot about what is wrong with
education. That, I guess, is the nature of things in this country. We
talk about what is wrong and how we will fix it. We almost never catch
our breath to talk about what is right. In fact, when you listen to
people talk about what is wrong with education in America, you wonder
how on Earth this country became what it has become.
Anyone who has done any traveling throughout the world understands
there is not any other country like this. Go to Europe, Asia, South
America, Africa--just travel and ask yourself: Have I visited a country
with the same conditions that exist in the United States? Is there a
country quite as free as this, as open as this, with an economy as
strong as this, where every young child goes into a school system which
allows him or her to become whatever his or her God-given talent
allows? That is what our school system provides our children.
This is not true in many other countries in the world. By the eighth
grade, often other countries have moved kids into different tracks
where only selected children have an opportunity for higher education.
A lot of countries do that.
Our country has said for a long while that we believe in universal
education. All children in this country, no matter their background,
ought to have the opportunity to be whatever their God-given talents
allow them to be.
Yet when hearing this debate, one wonders what has allowed this
country to be as successful as it has been? This is the country, after
all, that has split the atom and spliced genes. We have invented radar
and the silicon chip. We have invented plastics. We learned to fly, and
then we built airplanes. We flew those airplanes, and then we built
rockets. We took those rockets to the Moon and walked on its surface.
We cured smallpox and polio. We discovered how to create a telephone
and then used it, invented radios, television, computers.
One almost wonders how on Earth this happened in a country like this
with an education system that some say has totally failed us.
The reason all of this has happened is the education system has not
failed this country at all. There are some significant challenges and
some significant problems in certain areas of our education system, but
by and large this education system has been the most productive in the
world for a long period of time.
If one wants to evaluate where the world-class universities are, by
far 80 percent of them are in the United States of America. We house
the world-class universities in this country.
Let me talk a bit about the status of this country's educational
system. Some say we have an educational recession. The President,
during his campaign, said that, among others.
Yet reading achievement is up in this country. The National
Assessment for Educational Progress, called NAEP, says that during the
last decade, reading achievement has significantly improved in all
grades tested.
Are there some challenges in some schools in this country with
respect to reading skills? You bet your life there are, and we need to
address them.
But on the average, reading skills are up. Mathematics and science
achievement is up. NAEP scores in mathematics have improved during the
past decade, and in science NAEP reports scores have increased
significantly for older children in the last decade.
[[Page 6030]]
Students were better prepared for college throughout the 1990s.
Scores on both the SAT and ACT climbed steadily. Mathematics SAT scores
are at an all-time high. The average SAT math score increased from 509
in 1992 to 514 in 2000. Verbal SAT scores improved over the same period
from 500 to 505.
Some say if you compare the SAT scores in the United States to the
same scores in other countries, the United States ranks well down the
list or that our scores have decreased over time. But those people are
not comparing apples and apples. Only the best students in other
countries are taking the ACT and SAT, while in our country a majority
take them. Thirty years ago, only the top 25 percent of U.S. students
would take the SAT tests. Now, perhaps the top 60 or 70 percent of the
universe of students take the same tests. Would you perhaps get a lower
score on average by taking 70 percent of the universe instead of taking
the top 25 percent? Yes.
But compare the top 25 percent now to the top 25 percent 30 years
ago? What do you find? Higher test scores. You need to compare like
comparisons if you are going to make judgments.
Our students are taking tougher courses. Between 1992 and 1997, the
number of high school students taking advanced placement courses in all
subjects increased by two-thirds, from 338,000 to 581,000.
It is hard to make the case we are in an educational recession.
I have two children in school. They study hard. They do their
homework. They do not necessarily enjoy doing that every night, but
they do their homework. They are in a good school with great teachers.
The fact is that is true in much of this country.
There is a very simple formula to determine whether education is
going to work, and it is true in every neighborhood in every school in
this country. To make education work, we need several things: One, a
student who is interested in learning; two, a teacher who knows how to
teach; and, three, a parent who is going to be involved in that
student's education.
When those three elements are present, education works and works
well. When they are absent, we have great difficulties.
I know from firsthand experience that there are some schools with
significant challenges. I visited an inner-city school that had
significant challenges. I knew that at the front door. I walked through
metal detectors, saw security guards, watched teachers try to deal with
a series of problems in the class. Those problems were identical to the
problems of the neighborhood surrounding that school: poverty,
dysfunctional families, a whole series of issues that those children
then brought to that school.
Some weeks after I visited that school, I read in the paper there was
a shooting at that school. That was a few years ago. Some kid bumped
another kid at a water fountain, and the other kid took out a pistol
and shot him, despite the fact they had obviously gone through a metal
detector as they walked into that school.
If schools are not safe places of learning, they are not going to be
good places of learning, so we must deal with that issue.
We need good teachers, students willing to learn, parents involved in
education, and a safe environment in which students can learn.
In addition to that, in this debate, we are going to have to
understand that we have a responsibility as a country to send children
through classroom doors into classrooms of which we can be proud.
Children cannot learn in classrooms that are not modern.
I have toured schools, especially Indian schools attended by children
for whom the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to educate.
This is not an option. Yet these Indian schools where desks are 1 inch
apart, classes are so crowded you just cringe when you see them pack
these kids into those classrooms. These are schools where you cannot
hook up a computer because the facilities are so old they do not have
the capability of supporting a computer; schools where you would not
want to send your child to school because it is in such disrepair.
Is that a good safe place in which to learn? The answer clearly is no
and we need to do better. We need to deal with the issue of school
construction. We built schools all over this country just after the
Second World War. The GIs came home, they married, had children, and we
built schools all over this country. Many of those schools are now 50
and 60 years old and in desperate disrepair.
None is in greater disrepair than the schools on Indian reservations.
I talk about that a lot because we have so much to do in those areas.
We have a responsibility to deal with these crumbling schools around
the country. If we will have a first-class education, it ought to be in
a first-rate classroom.
Second, we also know from experience and from research that children
learn best in classrooms of 15 to 18 students. I have had children of
mine in classrooms in mobile trailers, the temporary classrooms with 32
and 34 kids. It doesn't work well. We know that. We know a teacher who
is teaching 15 to 18 children has much more time to spend individually
with those children and does a much better job. We have a
responsibility to try to help and do something about that as well.
At the Federal level, we only do niche financing for education. Our
schools are financed, by and large, by State and local governments and
especially by local school boards. No one is suggesting we change that.
But we ought not brag in this country, as some are wont to do, that
we don't have any national objectives for our school system. It is not
a source of pride, in my judgment, to brag that we do not have or want
national standards or objectives for our children to meet upon their
graduation. We ought to aspire to meet certain objectives. Of course we
ought to have national objectives we aspire to reach.
In order to do that, some feel strongly we ought to improve our
school buildings. This Congress can provide funding to help local
school districts meet their construction and repair needs. We ought to
reduce classroom size and provide funding to do that. We ought to do it
in this legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization.
President Bush is correct when he talks about the need for testing.
Many have stood for years on the floor of the Senate saying we need to
have some testing. People also need to know what our schools are
producing, how our schools are doing. I will offer an amendment dealing
with the issue of school report cards. Many States have them. But there
are no standards for school report cards and no parent can understand
how their school is doing. They know how their child is doing because
they get a report card every 6 to 9 weeks. But how is their school
doing? Is this school doing a good job of educating that child? How
does this school relate or compare to another school? How does our
State compare to another State? What are we getting as taxpayers for
the investment we are making in these schools? We have a right to know
that. We have a right to get report cards on our schools. All parents
have that right. All taxpayers have that right. I intend to offer an
amendment on that during the consideration of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
There is so much to say about education. Let me mention two stories
that illustrate the value of education.
I toured a refugee camp one day in an area near the border between
Guatemala and Honduras. It was some while ago when Honduras was having
a lot of terrorism and difficulties. At this refugee camp, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was running a refugee camp and
had people living in tents. As I was going around the camp, viewing the
conditions, there was a fellow, probably in his mid-sixties, who could
not speak English but he knew I was a visitor to the camp. He beckoned
to me and wanted me to come with him. I asked the guide from the United
Nations what the fellow wanted and the guide said: I think he wants you
to go into the tent area. So we did. He reached under his cot for some
of his belongings, which is all he had. He had a cot and a couple of
belongings stored under a cot in the refugee camp. He reached under the
cot
[[Page 6031]]
and pulled out a book. It was an education reading primer book in
Spanish. It was the Spanish version of the ``See Dick Run'' book we
would have had in first grade. He was, for the first time in his life,
in his mid-sixties, being taught to read. He wanted to show me, a
visitor, that he could begin to read. He pulled out the book and began
to read in halting Spanish, ``See Dick Run.''
He had a huge smile on his face after he finished the first two
lines, looked up at me with only two or three teeth, someone who was
living in great difficulty, in a refugee camp, with perhaps not enough
to eat, never having had an opportunity for education, and he was so
enormously proud of being able to learn.
Education, even at the later stage of his life, was so important to
him that he wanted to show a visitor he was learning to read. Think of
that.
The second story is one I have told my colleagues about before, but I
will tell it again because it also describes how important education
is. It is the story of a woman who was a janitor at a tribal college,
cleaning the bathrooms and the hallways of a tribal college. Her
husband had left her. She had four children and was over 40, with no
means of support except this job as a janitor. She wanted to go to the
college somehow so she could earn a degree and find a better job. The
day I showed up to give a graduation speech at the tribal college, this
woman was a graduate of the college. She had pulled herself up by the
proverbial bootstraps and gotten an education and was no longer the
janitor of the school. She was wearing a cap and a gown and a huge
smile because, despite it all, and through it all, with all the
adversity in her life, she had become a college graduate. You could
read ``pride'' all over her face. It is something she had done for her
own future that no one will ever take away from her. She invested in
herself against all the odds.
Education means so much to people at every stage: When they are
retired, when they are 40, when they are 20, when they are 10. We are
talking about the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. There is not much that is more important for this
country than to improve this law for America's kids. There is a lot on
which we can agree, some we will disagree on in the coming days, but I
hope at the end we can look at this bill and say we did something very
important for this country's future.
I will take the floor later in the debate and offer a couple of
amendments I have described. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I commend my colleague from North Dakota for his
eloquent statement on education. I come to the floor today to join a
number of Democratic Senators who have been here this afternoon to
speak about the issue of education which is going to come before the
Senate this coming week. I share their passion and their concern as we
look at reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
It is critical we understand we all share the same goals. President
Bush stated very rightly that no child should be left behind. Everyone
in this body wants to make sure that no child is left behind. The
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is our opportunity to do that
because, as we all know, education is the key to a child's future. If
they know how to read, they will make it in this world. If they can do
math, they will be able to move on. If they can converse, they will be
able to get a job and be successful. That is our goal for every single
child.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is being worked on
now has a number of compromises in it. It is not everything everybody
wants, but the one concern that I want to express adamantly to this
body before we bring this bill to the floor is the lack of available
resources. It is so easy to say we set standards, we set goals that we
demand our children and their schools reach. But if we don't provide
the dollars for them to be able to reach those goals, we are simply
putting out a mandate, an unfunded mandate, to districts which means
the kids will fail. There is no doubt that if you want a child to learn
to read, you have to provide the resources for a teacher who is
capable. You need to make sure the class size is small enough, that the
child has enough personal time with the teacher, an expert, to be able
to learn to read.
It is not magic. It takes a qualified teacher. We want to make sure
all of our kids pass the annual tests. Just giving tests as required in
the bill does not assure the students will do better. I fear it means
without the backing of the resources behind it, so the children can
learn what is required of them to pass the test, the children will fail
and drop out of school. And, yes, 5 years from now we may have a higher
percentage of kids doing better on tests but nobody will be testing the
kids who didn't make it, who dropped out, who failed, who are not in
the school system anymore. Those are the kids we cannot leave behind.
Without the resources that are so important for success, and a
commitment from this White House to have the resources available, we
will have failed America's children if we move this bill forward.
We know what works in public education. Any one of us who has been to
a school recently knows what makes a difference. A teacher makes all
the difference. A good teacher and a good principal makes an incredible
difference. A parent who is involved makes an incredible difference.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in every school. A lot of classrooms
don't have qualified teachers. That is a concern. It doesn't happen
just because we mandate it. It happens because we provide the resources
to recruit good teachers, to help school districts hire them, and to
make sure that every child is in a classroom with a qualified teacher.
We know the facility that a child learns in makes a difference. I
have been in classrooms, as I believe several of my colleagues have,
where children are wearing coats, where there are buckets catching
raindrops, where there is no electrical outlet for the children to even
plug in a computer much less have a computer, where there isn't even a
restroom facility in the building; they have to go outside across the
way to get to one.
How do you expect a child to learn in that kind of environment? It
does not happen. Unless we put investments into bringing our buildings
up to code and providing a partnership at the Federal level for those
districts and schools that need it the most, we cannot expect children
to learn. We cannot require that children only pass or move on if they
have the best teacher and the best classroom and the best facility. If
we do, we will have failed numbers of children in this country, and
that is really the wrong policy.
I will have much to say about many of these issues as we move through
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the coming days or weeks.
But I just want our colleagues to know that the worst thing we can do
is pass an Elementary and Secondary Education Act without adequate
funding for the requirements we are making, because several years from
now we will have every school district, every school administrator,
every school board member, every parent, and every teacher at our door
saying you passed an unfunded mandate down to us. Instead of recruiting
good teachers and building our classrooms and working hard to teach our
kids, we are failing them because the only thing we are doing is
providing testing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this morning as I read the Wall Street
Journal, I came across Mark Helprin's article called ``The Fire Next
Time.'' The thesis of Mr. Helprin is this:
[[Page 6032]]
The consensus that doing much to protect America is
preferable to doing too little has been destroyed. If the
President does not rebuild it, we will suffer the
consequences.
I commend this article to the Senate. I do not think it is totally
the President's responsibility. It certainly falls on many of us to
help the President and the Secretary of Defense and those in the
National Security Agency and the Vice President, all of them working on
what should be our defense policy, to find ways to rehabilitate our
national defense. Very clearly, we do not have the defense we need for
the future.
At one point in this article, Mr. Helprin says this:
God save the American soldier from those who believe that
his life can be protected and his mission accomplished on the
cheap. For what they perceive as an extravagance is always
less costly in lives and treasure than the long drawn-out
wars it deters altogether or shortens with quick victories.
I do hope all of us will think about how we can restore our national
prestige in terms of being the superpower of the world and having the
power to defend that position.
I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 2001]
The Fire Next Time
(By Mark Helprin)
From Alexandria in July of 1941, Randolph Churchill
reported to his father as the British waited for Rommel to
attack upon Egypt. In the midst of a peril that famously
concentrated mind and spirit, he wrote, ``You can see
generals wandering around GHQ looking for bits of string.''
Apparently these generals were not, like their prime
minister, devoted to Napoleon's maxim, ``Frappez la masse, et
le reste vient par surcroit,'' which, vis-a-vis strategic or
other problems, bids one to concentrate upon the essence,
with assurance that all else will follow in train, even bits
of string.
Consensus Destroyed
Those with more than a superficial view of American
national security, who would defend and preserve it from the
fire next time, have by necessity divided their forces in
advocacy of its various elements, but they have neglected its
essence. For the cardinal issue of national security is not
China, is not Russia, is not weapons of mass destruction, or
missile defense, the revolution in military affairs,
terrorism, training, or readiness. It is, rather, that the
general consensus in regard to defense since Pearl Harbor--
that doing too much is more prudent than doing too little--
has been destroyed. The last time we devoted a lesser
proportion of our resources to defense, we were well
protected by the oceans, in the midst of a depression, and
without major international responsibilities, and even then
it was a dereliction of duty.
The destruction is so influential that traditional
supporters of high defense spending, bent to the will of
their detractors, shrink from argument, choosing rather to
negotiate among themselves so as to prepare painstakingly
crafted instruments of surrender.
A leader of defense reform, whose life mission is to defend
the United States, writes to me: ``Please do not quote me
under any circumstances by name. . . . Bush has no chance of
winning the argument that more money must be spent on
defense. Very few Americans feel that more money needs to be
spent on defense and they are right. The amount of money
being spent is already more than sufficient.''
More than sufficient to fight China? It is hard to think of
anything less appealing than war with China, but if we don't
want that we must be able to deter China, and to deter China
we must have the ability to fight China. More than sufficient
to deal with simultaneous invasions of Kuwait, South Korea,
and Taiwan? More than sufficient to stop even one incoming
ballistic missile? Not yet, not now, and, until we spend the
money, not ever.
For someone of the all-too-common opinion that a strong
defense is the cause of war, a favorite trick is to advance a
wholesale revision of strategy, so that he may accomplish his
depredations while looking like a reformer. This pattern is
followed instinctively by the French when they are in
alliance and by the left when it is trapped within the
democratic order. But to do so one need be neither French nor
on the left.
Neville Chamberlain, who was neither, starved the army and
navy on the theory that the revolution in military affairs of
his time made the only defense feasible that of a ``Fortress
Britain'' protected by the Royal Air Force--and then failed
in building up the air force. Bill Clinton, who is not
French, and who came into office calling for the
discontinuance of heavy echelons in favor of power
projection, simultaneously pressed for a severe reduction in
aircraft carriers, the sine qua non of power projection.
Later, he and his strategical toadies embraced the revolution
in military affairs not for its virtues but because even the
Clinton-ravished military ``may be unaffordable,'' and
``advanced technology offers much greater military
efficiency.''
This potential efficiency is largely unfamiliar to the
general public. For example, current miniaturized weapons may
seem elephantine after advances in extreme ultraviolet
lithography equip guidance and control systems with circuitry
not .25 microns but .007 microns wide, a 35-fold reduction
that will make possible the robotization of arms, from
terminally guided and target-identifying bullets to
autonomous tank killers that fly hundreds of miles, burrow
into the ground, and sleep like locusts until they are
awakened by the seismic signature of enemy armor.
Lead-magnesium-niobate transducers in broadband sonars are
likely to make the seas perfectly transparent, eliminating
for the first time the presumed invulnerability of submarine-
launched ballistic missiles, the anchor of strategic nuclear
stability.
The steady perfection of missile guidance has long made
nearly everything the left says about nuclear disarmament
disingenuous or uninformed, and the advent of metastable
explosives creates the prospect of a single B-1 bomber
carrying the non-nuclear weapons load of 450 B-17s, the
equivalent of 26,800 100-pound bombs. Someday, we will have
these things, or, if we abstain, our potential enemies will
have them and we will not.
To field them will be more expensive than fielding less
miraculous weapons, which cannot simply be abandoned lest an
enemy exploit the transition, and which will remain as
indispensable as the rifleman holding his ground, because the
nature of war is counter-miraculous. And yet, when the
revolution in military affairs is still mainly academic, we
have cut recklessly into the staple forces.
God save the American soldier from those who believe that
his life can be protected and his mission accomplished on the
cheap. For what they perceive as extravagance is always less
costly in lives and treasure than the long drawn-out wars it
deters altogether or shortens with quick victories. In the
name of their misplaced frugality we have transformed our
richly competitive process of acquiring weapons into the
single-supplier model of the command economies that we
defeated in the Cold War, largely with the superior weapons
that the idea of free and competitive markets allowed us to
produce.
Though initially more expensive, producing half a dozen
different combat aircraft and seeing which are best is better
than decreeing that one will do the job and praying that it
may. Among other things, strike aircraft have many different
roles, and relying upon just one would be the same sort of
economy as having Clark Gable play both Rhett Butler and
Scarlett O'Hara.
Having relinquished or abandoned many foreign bases, the
United States requires its warships to go quickly from place
to place so as to compensate for their inadequate number, and
has built them light using a lot of aluminum, which, because
it can burn in air at 3,000 degrees Celsius, is used in
incendiary bombs and blast furnaces. (Join the navy and see
the world. You won't need to bring a toaster.)
And aluminum or not, there are too few ships. During the
EP-3 incident various pinheads furthered the impression of an
American naval cordon off the Chinese coast. Though in 1944
the navy kept 17 major carriers in the central Pacific alone,
not long ago its assets were so attenuated by the destruction
of a few Yugos disguised as tanks that for three months there
was not in the vast western Pacific even a single American
aircraft carrier.
What remains of the order of battle is crippled by a lack
of the unglamorous, costly supports that are the first to go
when there isn't enough money. Consider the floating dry
dock. By putting ships back into action with minimal transit
time, floating dry docks are force preservers and
multipliers. In 1972, the United States had 94. Now it has
14. Though history is bitter and clear, this kind of mistake
persists.
Had the allies of World War II been prepared with a
sufficient number of so pedestrian a thing as landing craft,
the war might have been cheated of a year and a half and many
millions of lives. In 1940, the French army disposed of 530
artillery pieces, 830 antitank guns, and 235 (almost half) of
its best tanks, because in 1940 the French did not think much
of the Wehrmacht--until May.
How shall the United States avoid similar misjudgments? Who
shall stand against the common wisdom when it is wrong about
deterrence, wrong about the causes of war, wrong about the
state of the world, wrong about the ambitions of ascendant
nations, wrong about history, and wrong about human nature?
the prudent course
In the defense of the United States, doing too much is more
prudent than doing too little. Though many in Congress argue
this and argue it well, Congress will not follow one of its
own. Though the president's appointees also argue it well,
the public will wait only upon the president himself. Only he
can sway a timid Congress, clear the way for his appointees,
and move the country toward the restoration of its military
power.
[[Page 6033]]
The president himself must make the argument, or all else
is in vain. If he is unwilling to risk his political capital
and his presidency to undo the damage of the past eight
years, then in the fire next time his name will be linked
with that of his predecessor, and there it will stay forever.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the
order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask consent I be given 10
minutes to address the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
OFF-SHORE DRILLING
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my
strong opposition to oil and gas exploration off the coast of Florida.
Specifically, the issue at hand is the sale of Lease Sale 181. I am
certainly not alone. There are 16 million Floridians who join in this
opposition. Senator Bob Graham as well, Florida State elected
officials, certainly the legislature of Florida and most of the Florida
congressional delegation opposes any drilling in Lease Sale 181.
Lease Sale 181 may not be included in the current moratorium on lease
sales off the coast of Florida, but in the hearts of all Floridians it
is part of the moratorium. Moreover, there has never been a production
drilling rig actually producing off the coast of Florida because
Floridians unequivocally oppose offshore drilling because of the threat
it presents to the State's greatest natural and economic resource: our
coastal environment.
Florida's coastal waters provide an irreplaceable link in the life
cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's beaches,
fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year from around
the globe, supporting our State's largest industry, tourism. Florida's
commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries as nurseries for
the most commercially harvested fish. Nearly 90 percent of the reef
fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico are caught on the West Florida
Shelf and contribute directly to Florida's economy.
Oil spills would be devastating to Florida's beaches, coastal waters,
reefs, and fisheries. The chronic pollution and discharges from
drilling would detrimentally effect the shallow, clean water marine
communities found on the Florida outer continental shelf. For these
reasons, I cannot sit back and watch as my State, one of our nation's
environmental jewels, is degraded.
I know some may have differing views because other issues or concerns
consume their constituents; and I respect those views. However, in
Florida the environment and tourism are of paramount importance. The
beaches, the abundant fisheries, and the pristine waters make Florida
what it is today; and the people of Florida want it to stay that way.
Just as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would not solve
the administration's claimed energy crisis, drilling in Lease Sale 181
will not either. Increased conservation and increased fuel efficiency
in our cars would do more to meet our country's energy needs than
drilling in Lease Sale 181. For these reasons, I must adamantly object
to and vigorously oppose the sale of Lease Sale 181; and I hope the
rest of this body listens to the pleas of Floridians.
All of the oil and gas that would come out of this proposed lease
sale would only give about 2 months worth of energy for the country.
That is simply not a viable tradeoff for the damage it would do to our
economy and our environment. We are not willing to make that tradeoff
in Florida. As a matter of fact, as you talk about drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, isn't it interesting. If you put it
into the context of all the barrels of oil that are projected to be
pumped from that wildlife refuge, that energy consumption could be
replaced if we but increased all new vehicles in their energy
efficiency by 3 miles per gallon. That puts the crisis in context.
Conservation is considerably important. The use of research and
development to produce more energy-efficient appliances, more energy-
efficient automobiles--there is no reason why this country that has the
technological prowess cannot produce a car that is economical and that
will get 80 miles per gallon. We have that within our grasp. Think what
that would do to our energy consumption.
As a matter of fact, when you look at the uses of energy by this
Nation, the transportation sector is the sector that consumes most of
that energy. Just think what future energy-efficient automobiles could
do for us.
But that is a subject of larger proportions. Today, I rise on behalf
of a State that has ecologically pristine beaches and the need to be
kept just that way. This proposed lease sale for oil and gas drilling
clearly jeopardizes the future economy and ecology of Florida.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
SENATE BUDGET RESOLUTION
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, just prior to the Easter recess, the
Senate completed action on the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. I
voted in favor of final passage of the budget resolution, recognizing
that it does not reflect everything that I wanted. However, I am
thankful the Senate-passed resolution does contain a fair amount of
what President Bush had originally proposed in his budget plan.
Nevertheless, it is my hope that when the Senate does go to
conference with the House--which has passed a more stringent budget
resolution--the end result will yield a budget resolution more in-tune
with the President's more responsible package.
As it was originally put forward, I felt the Bush budget plan
provided much of the fiscal responsibility I have long sought from
Washington prior to, and since, becoming a Member of the Senate.
Specifically, it restrains the growth of spending, reduces the debt as
fast as is prudent, and allows for meaningful tax cuts. This is what I
like to refer to as a ``three-legged stool'' approach. For this package
to work, however, we have to insist on a balanced approach, because
fiscal responsibility, like a three-legged stool, cannot stand if one
leg is significantly longer or shorter than the others.
Unfortunately, if we characterized the Senate budget resolution as a
three-legged stool, it would be rather wobbly right now since under the
Senate budget resolution, discretionary spending increases at 8
percent, and that is double the amount the President suggested.
People often forget the President's proposal increased spending by a
modest 4 percent at a time when inflation is approximately 2.8 percent,
meaning it contains a real increase of 1.2 percent. In contrast, the
Senate budget resolution, in real terms, results in a spending increase
of 5.2 percent. That is a 333-percent higher rate of growth than what
the President proposes.
These increases may sound like small numbers in the grand scheme of
things, or in the Senate, but do not be fooled. It adds up to tens and
hundreds of billions of dollars in more spending over time.
If we continue to spend money at this rate, we will have less
resources to address important national needs, such as reforming Social
Security, reforming Medicare, or providing a prescription drug benefit.
Indeed, according to calculations by the Concord Coalition, the
Senate budget resolution includes new and expanded entitlement spending
that is
[[Page 6034]]
going to cost $600 billion over 10 years, and discretionary spending
that may total $240 billion over 10 years.
Coupled with the resulting increased interest cost of $550 billion,
this package of amendments to the budget resolution could reduce the
on-budget surplus by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.
I say to my colleagues, enough is enough. We have to stop this
rampant spending and, instead, prioritize what we ought to be doing
with the taxpayers' money. We need to sit down and make some hard
choices about where to allocate taxpayers' money, where we want to
increase spending, where we want to make cuts or maybe where we want to
flat-fund.
For example, with regard to the National Institutes of Health, the
President has included a generous increase in the amount of money that
the NIH will receive in its budget, boosting NIH spending $2.8 billion.
That is a 13.8 percent increase. The Senate, not wanting to be outdone,
added an additional $700 million in NIH funding. Therefore, under the
Senate's plan, NIH funding will be increased 17.2 percent over last
year. In other words, the Senate wants to boost the rate of spending
increase some 25 percent faster than the President.
Do I think we should spend money on important health research?
Absolutely. But how much is enough?
The true cost is not just the dollar figure, it is what you give up,
or what you could have purchased with that money. Economists call the
concept ``opportunity cost.'' When the Senate thinks about spending
money on one thing, we need to recognize that we are giving up the
ability to use the money for other worthy purposes.
If we follow through with the Senate's budget resolution, that means
we will have fewer funds to conduct necessary Medicare reform,
undertake education efforts aimed at preventive health care, provide
greater access to rural health care, or fully fund the social services
block grant.
Think about the social services block grant for a moment. Congress
promised a funding stream of $2.8 billion for this program, but funding
has actually eroded $1 billion over the past 6 years. I hear a lot
about that from our county commissioners in the State of Ohio.
What most people do not realize is the fact that funds from the
social services block grant go towards providing health care services
for children, prenatal to age 3.
There are tough choices and dilemmas: Do you give more to NIH to
fight disease, or do you give more money to the social services block
grant, a program that gives children the nutrition and health services
they need so they do not develop the diseases that the NIH is trying to
fight?
Another thing we need to remember in figuring opportunity costs is
the fact that we have a number of unmet Federal needs--needs that are a
Federal responsibility, and which we should address as part of our full
and balanced approach to the Federal budget.
Do we spend Federal dollars on school construction, which is a State
and local responsibility, or do we prevent flood and storm damage from
ravaging people's lives? As former chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee, I personally know we have $39 billion of
water resources development projects that the Army Corps of Engineers
needs to fund, and yet we only provide $1.3 billion each year for such
projects. Let's get serious. We will never deal with that backlog at
this rate.
Addressing such unmet needs does not sound important until there is a
flood situation such as the folks along the Mississippi River are
enduring right at this very moment.
In addition, we have serious unmet needs in our Nation's wastewater
treatment and sewer infrastructure. The costs are going up
astronomically in the State of Ohio to comply with mandates from the
U.S. EPA for sewer and water treatment. We have a responsibility to
participate in helping to alleviate those costs.
My point is this: We should allocate our financial resources on a
very deliberate and prioritized basis and make the hard choices instead
of the reckless last-minute spending that has often characterized the
Senate over the last 3 years.
I cannot believe what the Senate has done the last couple of years. I
cannot believe it. If I as a Governor or as a mayor or as a member of a
board of county commissioners spent money the way we did during the
last couple of years, they would have run me out of office very
quickly.
I would remind my colleagues that just last year alone, we increased
non-defense discretionary authority by an astounding 14.3 percent.
Think about it. This is unsustainable. In my view, we need to stiffen
our backbones and bring an end to this spending habit. Families need to
carefully budget their resources. So do cities and States, and so, too,
should the Federal Government.
It is one of the reasons I wanted to get two points of order agreed
to in the budget resolution to prevent further game playing with tax
dollars. One point of order I offered would have helped stop abuses of
emergency spending, and another would have prevented ``directed
scoring,'' a process used to circumvent the budget process.
I am glad 51 Senators joined me and my cosponsors, Senators Gregg and
Feingold, in supporting this measure. It is my hope the next time we
will get the 60 votes we need for adoption.
I also wanted to offer an amendment that would have extended and
strengthened the current caps on discretionary spending. Unfortunately,
that amendment would never have passed muster due to the excessive
spending in the amendments of the budget resolution. We blew that out
before I even had a chance to bring it up.
While the Senate's version of the budget resolution did not do
enough, in my opinion, to keep spending in check, the silver lining is
the fact that it provides for two tax cuts. I am hopeful, therefore,
that we can, first, get this budget resolution to conference and that
it emerges looking more fiscally responsible and that the conferees
pare-down the spending; and second, that the Finance Committee begins
work immediately on developing an $85 billion tax cut which I call a
``balloon-payment'' approach, using the fiscal year 2001 on-budget
surplus.
I suggest this money go toward an immediate fiscal stimulus in the
form of a cut in marginal rates; a cut that people will see in their
paychecks directly through a change in their withholding.
We need to get the money in the people's hands right now. If we are
serious about getting this reduction in marginal rates done soon, I
honestly think we could get legislation considered and passed in the
Senate and the House and on the President's desk by Memorial Day and
the American people could see the benefits this summer. Let's get it
done.
I think we are all agreed that something needs to be done to restore
people's faith in the economy and bolster consumer optimism. It is at
the lowest level in my State since 1992. In my view, the balloon
payment is probably one of the best ways to show the doubting Thomases
that the money is there and that we are doing something in Congress to
address the issue. Further, I believe we need to enact a long-term
marginal rate tax reduction as proposed by the President, which
economists say will have a tremendous impact on stimulating our
economy.
Given our economic situation, we in Congress need to follow a
balanced three-legged stool approach. If we can control the growth of
spending, reduce the debt and achieve quick passage of a balloon
payment and implement both a long-term and short-term marginal tax cut,
it will give a gigantic boost to consumer confidence and help us return
to economic normalcy. We can quibble about how to distribute the
balloon payment. Let's just work it out. The main thing is, get it done
and connect to it a true marginal rate tax reduction.
However, there is one thing that I fear could torpedo any recovery
and that is our inability to address our Nation's energy crisis. While
we have already seen unprecedented home heating bills this past winter,
I am concerned the worst is yet to come. Indeed, we are already seeing
gasoline
[[Page 6035]]
prices move toward the $2-per-gallon range, and it is far from the peak
summer driving season. What's more, the cost of energy is skyrocketing
and supplies are scarce or unreliable. We can expect California's
problems to intensify and likely be duplicated in other areas across
the Nation.
It is not as if we didn't see this coming. The storm clouds have been
brewing for many years. Still, there has been no action on the part of
Congress to consider a comprehensive energy policy along the lines of
what Senator Murkowski has proposed in his bill, S. 388. I fear if we
don't get moving, we will not get that done, either.
We need to act on these issues quickly. The American people are
watching to see if we intend to bring this Nation out of our economic
downturn and back on the road to economic prosperity, or if we are
going to continue to fiddle around while the country burns. I hear that
from the folks back in Ohio: ``You are fiddling around in the Senate,
and you are not getting anything done. Don't you understand how bad it
is on the street?''
They want us to make the hard choices about spending. They want us to
work together to develop solutions to our energy crisis, to pay down
our debt, and provide quick and measurable tax relief. They want us to
put aside the partisan bickering and the gamesmanship and act in the
best interests of the Nation. After all, that is what they think they
elected us to do.
We need to act in the spirit of the old Rogers and Hammerstein song
from Carousel--many remember that--``You'll Never Walk Alone,'' so that
the American people know that ``at the end of the storm there is a
golden sky and the sweet silver song of the lark.''
Now, more than ever before, we have to restore people's faith and
their confidence in the economic future of our Nation. It is in our
hands.
____________________
GOVERNOR MELDRIM THOMSON
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay
tribute to my dear personal friend and political mentor, former New
Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson, who passed away last Thursday. Mel,
who was 89, was one of the greatest governors in the history of the
State of New Hampshire.
Mel Thomson left a lasting legacy. His legacy of country, state,
family, and God will not soon be forgotten by those of us whose lives
he touched so deeply. He was not only a gentleman but a gentle man, a
loving husband to Gale, father of six, grandfather, and great-
grandfather. He was one of my closest and most treasured friends. In
politics, loyalty and friendship mean everything.
In 1993, Governor Thomson wrote a book, ``100 Famous Founders,'' for
which I was honored to have written the introduction. Among the first
of the Founding Fathers to step forward and put his life, property, and
honor on the line for his country by signing the Declaration was Josiah
Bartlett of New Hampshire. Dr. Bartlett later served as the Governor of
New Hampshire. It is fitting that this magnificent book of profiles of
our Nation's one hundred foremost Founders was written by one of Josiah
Bartlett's most distinguished and patriotic successors as Governor,
Meldrim Thomson.
Meldrim Thomson had the same trust in God, love of family, steadfast
dedication to his country and state, and sense of honor that
characterized the Founders about whom he wrote. Indeed, had he lived in
Josiah Bartlett's time, Meldrim Thomson certainly would have been a
Founder too. Had he lived during the American Revolution, he would have
stood shoulder-to-shoulder fighting for the cause alongside George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and General John Stark.
Meldrim Thomson, Jr., took the oath of office as the 91st Governor of
New Hampshire on January 3, 1973, and served until January 4, 1979. He
is the only Republican to have served as Governor of New Hampshire for
three consecutive two-year terms.
Meldrim Thomson's road to the governorship began in 1954, when he
moved his publishing business and his family from New York to a new
home in Orford, NH. Although he was not a native son, Meldrim Thomson's
strongly independent nature and his bedrock conservative principles
were right for New Hampshire. In spirit, then, he quickly became a son
of New Hampshire.
Plunging into New Hampshire politics, Meldrim Thomson waged an
unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964.
That same year, though, he won election to New Hampshire's
Constitutional Convention.
With characteristic grit and determination, Meldrim Thomson did not
let his defeats in the 1968 and 1970 New Hampshire Republican
gubernatorial primaries discourage him from continuing to seek our
State's highest office. His commitment paid rich dividends in 1972,
when he won election as Governor. He ran and won again in 1974 and
1976. In waging his victorious campaigns, Meldrim Thomson proved
himself to be a true populist. Running on the slogan ``ax the tax,''
Governor Thomson took his campaigns to the people of New Hampshire in
their living rooms and meeting halls.
As Governor, Meldrim Thomson did not shrink from difficult decisions.
As the spiritual descendant of the Founding Fathers, he had the courage
to take grave political risks on behalf of his unfailingly conservative
principles. Meldrim Thomson fought tirelessly for low taxes and strict
fiscal discipline. As a result, during his time as Governor, the
economy of New Hampshire enjoyed a prosperity that was unknown in the
rest of New England. Attracted by the state's low taxes, significant
new businesses moved their operations to New Hampshire. Wages and
salaries increased Old manufacturing centers such as Manchester and
Nashua demonstrated new signs of life.
Beyond his great economic successes, Meldrim Thomson did not hesitate
to use his platform as Governor to speak out on vital national and
international issues. He did not hesitate to criticize the foreign and
domestic misadventures of the Administration of Jimmy Carter. In fact,
Governor Thomson ordered New Hampshire State flags flown at half-staff
to protest President Carter's pardon of Vietnam era draft resisters. It
deeply offended Governor Thomson's profound sense of patriotism that a
President of the United States would take such an unprecedented action
to shield those who refused their country's call from the rightful
legal consequences of their acts.
I have so many personal, inspiring memories of Mel Thomson. In our
private moments, of which we shared many up at the farm in Orford, he
would affectionately call me ``son''. I thought of him like a father,
both personally as well as politically.
He always inspired me with his words of wisdom. He often said ``put
principle above politics.'' He heeded his own words. Like Lincoln,
Churchill and so many great men, he was unfairly criticized, but rose
above it all to do what was right. He was a dedicated conservative, who
was as solid as the granite in our mountains.
Mel Thomson's impact on the state, patriotism, and commitment to his
values and his family will not be forgotten. I will miss him terribly,
as will those many New Hampshire citizens whose lives he touched. Rest
in peace, my friend. You have earned it. It has been an honor to
represent you in the U.S. Senate.
____________________
COMMENDING NAVY LT. SHANE OSBORN AND HIS CREW MEMBERS FOLLOWING THEIR
DETAINMENT ON HAINAN ISLAND, CHINA
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend in the
strongest possible terms the members of the United States Navy crew who
were detained on Hainan Island in China for 11 long days earlier this
month. I think I speak for our entire nation when I say how much we
admire their dedication and the extraordinary level of professionalism
they exhibited throughout their ordeal.
Under the command of Lt. Shane Osborn, this crew of 24 servicemen and
[[Page 6036]]
women left Kadena Airbase in Okinawa, Japan, on the evening of March 31
for what was to have been a routine mission over the South China Sea.
As we all now know, what happened after they left Okinawa, and for
the next 11 days, was not routine. It was heroic. The entire world
witnessed the strength, discipline and courage of our Navy crew.
Every man and woman on that plane is a hero.
I am especially impressed with the skill and character of a
remarkable young man who first dreamed of flying as a 3-year-old
watching a small Cessna on a South Dakota farm.
We are fortunate that Lt. Shane Osborn pursued his dream to fly. And
we are doubly fortunate that he put that dream to work in service of
his country.
Lt. Osborn says, modestly, that he was just what he'd been trained to
do when he landed his damaged aircraft safely. Others see it
differently. A Pentagon spokesman described the landing as a
``spectacular feat of airmanship.'' Experienced EP-3 pilots termed it
astounding. Indeed, it was.
Think about what had just happened: The collision with a smaller,
faster Chinese F-8 had dropped Lt. Osborn's EP-3 between 5,000 and
8,000 feet and turned it almost completely upside-down; two of the
plane's four propellers had been clipped in the collision, rendering
useless the wing flaps used to slow the plane during landing.
The collision had also sheared off the plane's nose cone.
And most of the plane's instruments were so badly damaged that they
were useless.
Even so, Lt. Osborn managed to stabilize the plane, and he and his
crew were able to guide it to the nearest airport, 70 miles northwest,
on China's Hainan Island.
Remarkably, during that 70-mile flight, Lt. Osborn and his crew had
the presence of mind to follow international procedure and issue a
series of distress signals. In fact, they issued as many as 25 signals
on two separate standard frequencies.
Lt. Osborn's crew and commanders say his courage and quick thinking
saved 24 lives.
After landing in Hainan, with their plane surrounded by armed Chinese
personnel, Lt. Osborn and his crew followed U.S. Navy procedure. They
destroyed sensitive documents and technology, greatly limiting what
could have been a significant intelligence loss.
For the next 11 days, Lt. Osborn's leadership, courage, dignity, and
his remarkable sense of humor, helped keep the spirits of his crew
high.
We are fortunate to be protected and represented by the entire crew
of that Navy EP-3: Richard Bensing; Steven Blocher; Bradford Borland;
David Cecka; John Comerford; Shawn Coursen; Jeremy Crandall; Josef
Edmunds; Brandon Funk; Scott Guidry; Jason Hanser; Patrick Honeck;
Regina Kauffman; Nicholas Mellos; Ramon Mercado; Richard Payne;
Mitchell Pray; Kenneth Richter; Marcia Sonon; Curtis Towne; Jeffrey
Vignery; Wendy Westbrook, and Rodney Young.
As a South Dakotan, I must say I am especially proud of Lt. Shane
Osborn, who followed his dream from Mitchell, SD, to the Norfolk,
Nebraska Civil Air Patrol, and now, into the pages of Naval history. He
is a true hero, and we are proud of him.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 BUDGET RESOLUTION
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I submit a statement for the Record
regarding a small business amendment I offered to the fiscal year 2002
budget resolution with my colleague, Senator Bond, on April 6, 2001.
First, let me extend sincere thanks to my colleagues for supporting
this amendment which restored critical funding to the Small Business
Administration's finance and management assistance programs that help
start and strengthen small businesses in our country. Second, let me
correct the Record to reflect all the cosponsors:
Senators Bond, Bingaman, Wellstone, Landrieu, Daschle, Leahy,
Johnson, Schumer, Collins, Levin, Snowe, Harkin, Conrad, and Domenici.
My apologies to Senators Conrad, Domenici, and Harkin who were not
listed in the Record when the amendment passed. Again, thank you to all
my colleagues for agreeing to this amendment and showing their support
for our small businesses.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment and the summary
along with all the letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
amendment no. 183
(Purpose: To revise the budget for fiscal year 2002 so that the small
business programs at the Small Business Administration are adequately
funded and can continue to provide loans and business assistance to the
country's 24 million small businesses, and to restore and reasonably
increase funding to specific programs at the Small Business
Administration because the current budget request reduces funding for
the Agency by a minimum of 26 percent at a time when the economy is
volatile and the Federal Reserve Board reports that 45 percent of banks
have reduced lending to small businesses by making it harder to obtain
loans and more expensive to borrow)
On page 21, line 15, increase the amount by $264,000,000.
On page 21, line 16, increase the amount by $154,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $264,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $154,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $264,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $154,000,000.
____
Purpose: To amend the budget for fiscal year 2002 so that
the small business programs at the Small Business
Administration are adequately funded and can continue to
provide loans and business assistance to the country's 24
million small businesses. It is necessary to restore and
reasonably increase funding to specific programs at the SBA
because the current budget request reduces funding for the
Agency by a minimum of 26 percent at time when the economy is
volatile and the Federal Reserve Board reports that 45
percent of banks have reduced lending to small businesses by
making it harder to obtain loans and more expensive to
borrow.
All funds are added to Function 376, which funds the SBA
for FY 2002.
credit programs
$118 million for 7(a) loans, funding an $11 billion program
$26.2 million for SBIC participating securities, will
support a $2 billion program
$750,000 million for direct microloans, funding a $30
million program
$21 million for new markets venture capital debentures,
funding $150 million program
Total request for credit programs = $166 million
non-credit programs
$4 million for the National Veterans Business Development
Corporation
$10 million for Microloan Technical Assistance, total of
$30 million
$30 million for the Small Business Development Centers,
total of $105 million
$30 million for New Markets Venture Capital Technical
Assistance
$15 million for the Program for Investment in
Microenterprise
$7 million for BusinessLINC
$1.7 million for Women's Business Centers, bringing total
to $13.7 million
$250,000 for Women's Business Council, bringing total to $1
million
Total request for non-credit programs = $98 million
Total request for credit and non-credit programs = $264
million
____
The National Association of Government Guaranteed
Lenders, Inc.
Stillwater, OK, April 5, 2001.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing on behalf of NAGGL's
nearly 700 members in support of your amendment, number 183,
to the Budget Resolution that would revise the proposed
budget for the Small Business Administration in fiscal year
2002. Specifically, your amendment would restore $264 million
to the SBA's budget in fiscal year 2002 of which $118 million
is earmarked for the agency's 7(a) guaranteed loan program.
We strongly believe it is in the best interest of small
business that your amendment be adopted.
The present budget proposes no fiscal year 2002
appropriations for the 7(a) loan program and instead proposes
to make the program self-funding through the imposition of
increased fees. The previous SBA Administrator testified
before the House Small Business Committee last year that the
7(a) program was already being run at a ``profit'' to
[[Page 6037]]
the government. This statement was confirmed in a September
2000 Congressional Budget Office report entitled ``Credit
Subsidy Reestimates, 1993-1999.'' Unfortunately, the budget
as currently proposed would, in our view, have the effect of
imposing additional taxes by increasing program fees. This
result would be ironic given the Administration's push for
tax cuts.
A recent survey of NAGGL's membership, who currently make
approximately 80 percent of SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, shows
that if the budget were adopted as proposed, most lenders
would significantly curtail their 7(a) lending activities.
Therefore, small businesses would find it more difficult and
expensive to obtain crucial long-term financing. The proposed
budget would increase the lender's cost of making a loan by
75 percent and would increase the direct cost to the borrower
by 12 percent. Any fee increase is unacceptable when the
program is already profitable for the government.
The small business consequences of a slowdown in 7(a)
guaranteed lending are manifold. Currently, according to
statistics available from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation and the SBA, approximately 30 percent of all
long-term loans, those with a maturity of 3 years or more,
carry an SBA 7(a) guarantee. This is because lenders
generally are unwilling to make long-term loans with a short-
term deposit base. Therefore, reducing the availability of
7(a) capital to small businesses will have a significant
effect on them and on the economy.
The average maturity for an SBA 7(a) guaranteed loan is 14
years. The average conventional small business loan carries
an average maturity of one year or less. For those
conventional loans with original maturities over one year,
the average maturity is just three years. The majority of SBA
7(a) borrowers are new business startups or early stage
companies. The longer maturities provided by the SBA 7(a)
loan program give small businesses valuable payment relief,
as the longer maturity loans carry substantially lower
monthly payments.
For example, if a small business borrower had to take a 5
year conventional loan instead of a 10 year SBA 7(a) loan,
the result would be a 35%-40% increase in monthly payments.
The lower debt payments are critical to startup and early
stage companies. Small business loans, where they can be
found, would have vastly increased monthly payments. This at
a time when the economy appears to be struggling and when
bank regulators have spurred banks to tighten credit
criteria, the current budget only proposes to worsen the
situation for small business borrowers.
Your amendment would help mitigate this problem. It would
provide small businesses far better access to long-term
financing on reasonable terms and conditions at a time when
their access to such capital is critical. We urge your
colleagues to support your initiative and adopt your
amendment.
Respectfully,
Anthony R. Wilkinson.
____
U.S. Hispanic Chamber
of Commerce,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Ranking Member, Senate Small Business Committee, Russell
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: We write in support of the Kerry/Bond
Amendment to restore $264 million of the proposed cuts to the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) budget. We further
support the amendment's proposal to have these funds come out
of the contingency fund and not the tax cut or the Medicare/
Social Security trust fund. Your amendment would ensure that
the small business programs at the SBA are adequately funded
and continue to provide loan and business assistance to
Hispanic-owned small businesses in this country.
The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC)
represents the interest of approximately 1.5 million
Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States and Puerto
Rico. With a network of over 200 local Hispanic chambers of
commerce across the country, the USHCC stands as the
preeminent business organization that promotes the economic
growth and development of Hispanic entrepreneurs.
The SBA programs that are currently in jeopardy of losing
funds have been extremely instrumental in helping our
Hispanic entrepreneurs start and maintain successful
businesses in the United States. Without these programs, the
Hispanic business community will suffer huge setbacks to the
strides we have been able to achieve over the years. It is
therefore necessary to restore and increase funding to these
programs so that the Hispanic business community will
continue to experience economic growth and success in this
country.
We support your efforts and urge other members of the
Senate to support the Kerry/Bond amendment in restoring these
necessary funds to the SBA.
Respectfully submitted,
Maritza Rivera,
Vice President for Government Relations.
____
Independent Community
Bankers of America,
Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
To: Members of the U.S. Senate.
From: Independent Community Bankers of America.
Re: ICBA support the Kerry-Bond amendment to preserve small
business loan programs and to prevent new fees.
On behalf of the 5,300 members of the ICBA, we support the
Kerry-Bond amendment to the FY 2002 budget and urge all
Senators to join in support of this important bipartisan
amendment. The amendment to be offered by Senators John Kerry
(D-Mass) and Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) would prevent new
hidden taxes in the form of additional fees imposed on small
business lenders and borrowers. The proposed FY 2002 Budget
pending in the Senate would levy significant new fees on the
SBA 7(a) loan program. These increased fees would jeopardize
needed lending and credit to small business at the worst
possible time as our economy has slowed dramatically and
small business lending has become more difficult. Therefore,
the Kerry-Bond amendment would restore the appropriation for
the 7(a) small business loan program and prevent onerous new
fees from being levied on borrowers and lenders.
This amendment shares bipartisan support. The Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the Senate Small Business Committees
oppose new taxes on small businesses in the form of higher
loan fees. Specifically, Small Business Committee Chairman
Chris Bond and Ranking Member John Kerry have asked for the
$118 million appropriation to support the 7(a) loan program
to be restored in the FY 2002 Budget. The ICBA applauds the
bipartisan efforts of Senators Kerry and Bond in offering
their amendment.
We urge every Senators' support for the Kerry-Bond
amendment so that small businesses have continued access to
needed credit and that the 7(a) loan program is not
devastated by taxing new fees.
____
Association of Small Business
Development Centers,
Burke, VA.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Small Business Committee,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: We wish to commend you for prosing an
amendment to the Budget Resolution calling for the
restoration of funding for the Small Business Development
Center (SBDC) and 7(a) Guaranteed Loan Programs. During this
period of economic downturn, it is even more important that
funding for these two critically important programs not be
compromised as hundreds of thousands of small businesses will
need management and technical assistance and long term debt
financing more than ever.
As for the SBDC Program specifically, we are proud to
report that the most recent impact survey of the program
found that in one year SBDC's helped small businesses create
92,000 new jobs, generate $630 million in new tax revenues,
increased by 67,000 the number of entrepreneurs counseled
above previous levels, and provided training to more than
84,000 small business owners than were trained during the
last reporting period. In all, over 750,000 small business
and preventure clients received SBDC assistance in the last
fiscal year. And that was during good economic times.
Your seeking funding of $105,000,000 for the SBDC Program
is bipartisan as Senator Kit Bond, Chairman of the Senate
Small Business Committee in his Views and Estimates letter to
the Senate Budget Committee called for the same funding
level. Likewise Senator Bond opposed any funding cut for the
7(a) Guaranteed Loan Program. Both recommendations we
applaud.
We also understand that your amendment would restore
funding for the New Markets and PRIME programs. This
association has taken no formal position regarding funding
for these well intended programs.
Thank you for soliciting our views. We appreciate your
leadership regarding these two outstanding SBA programs.
Sincerely,
Donald T. Wilson,
Director of Government Relations.
____
Wesst Corp,
Albuquerque, NM, April 5, 2001.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the Association of Women's
Business Centers, I am writing to voice our full support for
the amendment you have introduced (#183) which would provide
adequate funding for the Small Business Administration's
programs targeted to lending and business assistance.
As you know, the SBA programs serve the credit and business
development needs of women, minorities, and low-income
entrepreneurs all across the United States and Puerto Rico.
It is absolutely critical that these programs, particularly
the Women's Business Centers Program, the Microloan Program,
PRIME, and the National Women's Business Council, receive the
funding you have recommended in your amendment so that
existing and emerging entrepreneurs throughout the country
continue to have opportunities to realize the American dream
of business ownership.
[[Page 6038]]
As an advocate for tens of thousands of women business
owners across the country, the AWBC applauds your vision and
leadership in helping to ensure that these critical SBA
programs continue to serve the entrepreneurial and credit
needs of the American people.
We look forward to working with you in the months ahead to
ensure the passage of this amendment.
Thank you very much for your ongoing support.
Sincerely,
Agnes Noonan,
Chair, AWBC Policy Committee, Executive Director.
____
The Association of Women's
Business Center,
Boston, MA, April 5, 2001.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: As the President of the Association of
Women's Business Centers (AWBC), I am writing on behalf of
the 80+ Women's Business Centers who have been funded by the
Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business
Ownership. We write to support your amendment #183 to
increase funding for the SBA programs and, in particular, to
fund the Women's Business Center Program at $13.7 million.
The President's budget only provides level funding of $12
million for the WBC program, which is inadequate at this time
as women are continuing to start two-thirds of all new
businesses. Clearly, we need an increase in funding at this
time to continue to ensure that we are keeping pace with this
fast growth and providing services to as many women business
owners as possible.
Thank you very much for your continued support and advocacy
on our behalf.
Sincerely,
Andrea C. Silbert,
President, AWBC, and CEO Center for Women & Enterprise.
____
Houston, TX,
April 5, 2001.
Senator John Kerry,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: Since I work with small business owners
every day to help them obtain the financing they require to
start a new business, acquire a business or expand an
existing business, I wanted you to know that I strongly
support you and your efforts regarding Amendment 183.
Thank you for your continued good work.
Sincerely,
Chairman Rosales.
____________________
TAIWAN ARMS SALE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Administration recently informed
Congress of its arms sales package to Taiwan. Having long followed
political developments both in Taiwan and the People's Republic of
China, PRC, and having visited both sides of the Strait, I wanted to
make a few brief comments.
First, weapon systems and military hardware aside, the political
message transmitted to Taipei through the sales is that America's
commitment to Taiwan remains steadfast and strong. This is an
appropriate message delivered in a timely manner by the new
Administration and with the encouragement and support of Congress.
Second, the package generally reflects a balanced approach to
Taiwan's defensive needs, particularly on and under the sea. While the
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar system are
not part of this year's sale, and would not be operational until 2010,
the Administration has left open the option to pursue Aegis-equipped
destroyers at a future date. Aegis is still on the table. America has
bolstered Taiwan's defensive capabilities through Kidd-class
destroyers, P-3 aircraft, submarines, and other weapons, and has
deferred decisions on other sales, such as tanks and helicopters,
pending a review of Taiwan's ground forces needs.
Finally, the PRC must understand that its continued buildup of short-
range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and aggressive modernization
of its military for offensive purposes will all but guarantee the
future sale of Aegis-equipped destroyers, or other technologically
advanced weapons system. If the Mainland is serious in wanting a
peaceful resolution of differences with Taiwan, senior military and
civilian leaders must accept America's obligations under the Taiwan
Relations Act to provide ``defense articles and defense services in
such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.''
Simply put, every Chinese offensive military action will have a
Taiwan-U.S. defensive reaction. Beijing can make clear its intentions
by immediately renouncing the option to use force against Taiwan, and
by reducing its military deployments across the Strait.
I intend to continue to follow political and military developments
not just in Taiwan and the PRC but throughout the region. I urge
Beijing and Taipei to continue dialogue as the means of resolving their
differences.
____________________
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to speak today in order to
commemorate the Armenian Genocide. As you know, today marks the 86th
anniversary of this tragic occurrence. It is important that we take
time to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the
survivors that are still with us.
April 24th marks the inception of brutal genocidal campaign to
eliminate Armenians from the Turkish Ottoman Empire. From the period of
1915-1923, approximately one and a half million Armenians perished
under the rule of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. During this horrific
period, the Armenian people fell victim to deportation, conscription,
torture, starvation and murder.
The Armenian genocide was the result of a consciously orchestrated
government plan. The German Chancellor to the Ottoman Empire, Count
Wolff-Metternich, stated at the time that, ``In its attempt to carry
out its purpose to resolve the Armenian question by the destruction of
the Armenian race, the Turkish government has refused to be deterred
neither by our representations, nor by those of the American Embassy,
nor by the delegate of the Pope . . .''
In a century filled with loss and bloodshed, the Armenian Genocide
marked the first effort of the century to systematically eliminate an
entire people. Unfortunately, the world did not learn from this
massacre, and the past 86 years have been stained by reminders that
there are those who will stop at no means to spread their agendas of
hate and intolerance.
Nobel Laureate writer Elie Wiesel has said that the denial of
genocide constitutes a ``double killing'' for it seeks to rewrite
history by absolving the perpetrators of violence while ignoring the
suffering of the victims. We must acknowledge the horrors perpetrated
against the Armenian people to preserve the memory of the victims and
to remind the world that we cannot and will not forget these crimes
against humanity. However, it is not enough to simply remember those
who have perished. We must speak out against such tragedies, and
dedicate ourselves to ensuring that evils such as the Armenian Genocide
are not revisited on our planet. This is the highest tribute we can pay
to the victims of any genocide.
The Armenian people have preserved their culture, faith and identity
for over a thousand years. In the last century alone, the Armenian
people withstood the horrors of two World Wars and several decades of
Soviet dominance in order to establish modern Armenia. I hope all my
Senate colleagues will join me in honoring and remembering the victims
of the Armenian Genocide.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today marks the 86th anniversary of the
beginning of one the great human tragedies of history, the Armenian
genocide. Between 1915-1923 as many as 1.5 million Armenians were
systematically murdered by the Ottoman Empire and hundreds of thousands
more were forced to flee their homeland. These Armenians were victims
of a policy intended to isolate, exile and even extinguish the Armenian
population.
Although nearly a century has passed since this tragedy occurred, we
must not wipe it from our consciousness and let it become the forgotten
past. Rather, we must continually learn from mistakes of the past so
that they are not repeated again and again in the future. Recent
history in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo tells us that systematic
brutality, that the attempt to wipe out an entire population because of
its ethnicity, is still possible. The atrocities
[[Page 6039]]
that took place in these countries remind us that we still have much to
learn.
The international community has made some progress, standing up for
justice, holding those responsible for genocide and other serious
violations of international humanitarian law accountable for their
crimes. By establishing war crimes tribunals, like the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR, we have begun to send
the clear message that such atrocious crimes will not go unpunished. I
am pleased that the former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, who has
been wanted on international war crimes charges for his role in the
campaign of violence and hate in the Balkans, has finally been
arrested. I hope that his arrest marks the beginning of full justice
being served with regard to him and others responsible for the
unspeakable crimes committed in the Former Yugoslavia.
Each day we continue to read about and witness ethnic violence and
violations of human rights in countries across the globe. Sadly, in
many places this is simply the norm. Clearly there is a great deal of
work that still needs to be done to prevent human tragedy. So today as
we commemorate the Armenian genocide, let us honor the men, women and
children whose lives were lost between 1915-1923, as well as the other
countless victims of violence throughout history, and recommit
ourselves to efforts that foster acceptance of others, respect for
human rights, democratic principles, and peaceful relations between
people and nations at all levels.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today marks the 86th anniversary of
the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to acknowledge and
commemorate this terrible crime and to help ensure that it will never
happen again.
On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire launched a brutal and
unconscionable policy of mass murder. Over an eight year period, 1.5
million Armenians were killed, and another 500,000 were driven from
their homes, their property and land confiscated.
We who enjoy the blessings of freedom and liberty must commemorate
this event to ensure that it does not happen again. Far too often
during this century we have remained silent as men, women, and children
have been singled out, rounded up, and killed because of their race,
ethnicity, or religion. By acknowledging the Armenian Genocide we state
loud and clear: Never again.
Never again will we let brutal violations of human rights go without
condemnation. Never again will we turn our backs on the oppressed and
give comfort to the oppressors. Never again will we fail to stand up
for justice and human dignity. Never again will we allow genocide to be
perpetrated on this Earth.
Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the
living. I am proud that my home State of California is home to a
vibrant Armenian American community, a half a million strong. They have
enriched the culture of our state and have participated in every aspect
of civic life. They are a shining example of a people who overcame the
horrors of the past to create a better future.
Let us never forget the victims of the Armenian Genocide. Let us
ensure that they did not die in vain. Let us come together to remember
the crimes of the past and to pledge to one another that they will not
happen again in the future. Let us look ahead with Armenia and the
Armenian American community to a brighter tomorrow.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 86th
anniversary of the Armenian genocide. From 1915 to 1923, 1.5 million
Armenians were executed in the first genocide of the 20th Century.
Sadly, there are some people who still deny the very existence of
this period which saw the institutionalized slaughter of the Armenian
people and the dismantling of Armenian culture. To those who would
question these events, I refer them to numerous documents kept by the
United States National Archives, which detail these horrifying events.
The entire Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was forcibly
removed from their historic homeland in present-day eastern Turkey. A
million and a half people were massacred and another 500,000 were
exiled. As the United States Ambassador to the Ottoman State at the
time, Henry Morgenthau, said, ``I am confident that the whole history
of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great
massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when
compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.''
Tragically, the Armenian genocide was the first in a series of
genocides in the 20th Century. Adolf Hitler, in preparing his genocide
plans for the Jews, predicted that no one would remember the atrocities
he was about to unleash. After all, he asked, ``Who remembers the
Armenians?''
And that is why we come together every year at this time to remember.
The genocide of the Armenians did take place, and we do remember. That
memory must be kept alive, to keep us vigilant in our efforts to
prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join with Armenians throughout the
United States, in Armenia, and around the world in commemorating the
86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
This week, members and friends of the Armenian community will gather
together to remember April 24, 1915. On that day, nationalist forces of
the Ottoman Empire started an eight year campaign of massacre and
deportation that would impact the lives of every Armenian in Asia
Minor.
Armenian men, women, and children of all ages fell victim to murder,
rape, torture, and starvation. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million
Armenians had been systematically murdered and another 500,000 had
their property stolen and were driven from their homeland. With World
War I occupying center stage at the time, the Armenian people's
situation went unaided.
Unfortunately, the residents of Armenia still suffer today. Armenian
efforts at democracy and economic development have been hindered by
regional conflict, natural disasters and internal strife. Yet, despite
these setbacks, the Armenian people have maintained a persevering
spirit that has kept hope alive. In the past few months, optimism has
grown as internationally mediated peace talks between Armenian
President Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Aliyev have made
progress.
Commemoration of the Armenian genocide is important not to keep alive
the memory of those Armenians who died, but to remind the world of its
duty. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu noted in 1999, ``It is sadly true what
a cynic has said, that we learn from the history that we do not learn
from history. And yet it is possible that if the world had been
conscious of the genocide that was committed by the Ottoman Turks
against the Armenians, the first genocide of the twentieth century,
then perhaps humanity might have been more alert to the warning signs
that were given before Hitler's madness was unleashed on an unbelieving
world.'' It is my hope that the world has begun to pay attention to
history because, unlike in 1915, the international community heeded the
warning signs in Kosovo and did not sit back and watch, but reacted
quickly and decisively. We must always bear witness to the terrors of
yesterday so that we can respond to acts of oppression in the future,
ensuring that the deaths of all victims of hatred and prejudice are not
in vain.
Therefore, on the 86th anniversary of the terrible tragedy of the
Armenian genocide we remember the past and rededicate ourselves to
supporting Armenia as it looks to the future.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, April 24 marks the 86th anniversary of
the beginning of one of the most tragic events in history, the Armenian
Genocide. In 1915, the Ottoman Turkish Government embarked on a brutal
policy of ethnic extermination. Over the next eight years, 1.5 million
Armenians
[[Page 6040]]
were killed, and more than half a million were forced from their
homeland into exile.
In the years since then, the Armenian diaspora has thrived in the
United States and in many other countries, bringing extraordinary
vitality and achievement to communities across America and throughout
the world. The Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian National
Committee of America, and other distinguished groups deserve great
credit for their impressive work in maintaining the proud history and
heritage of the Armenian people, and guaranteeing that the Armenian
Genocide will never be forgotten.
One of the enduring achievements of the survivors of the Genocide and
their descendants has been to keep its tragic memory alive, in spite of
continuing efforts by those who refuse to acknowledge the atrocities
that took place. In Massachusetts, the Armenian Genocide is part of
that curriculum in every public school. Legislation was introduced last
year in the U.S. House of Representatives to support recognition of the
Armenian Genocide, and the French government approved a law to
recognize the Armenian Genocide in January.
It is time for all governments, political leaders and peoples
everywhere to recognize the Armenian Genocide. These annual
commemorations are an effective way to pay tribute to the courage and
suffering and triumph of the Armenian people, and to ensure that such
atrocities will never happen again to any people on earth.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate
crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy last month. The
Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current
hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is
unacceptable in our society.
I would like to detail a heinous crime that occurred in my own home
State of Oregon in 1995. A twenty-seven year old Stockton, California
man murdered a Medford, OR couple, Roxanne Ellis, 53 and Michelle
Abdill, 42. The women, who ran a property management business,
disappeared December 4, 1995 after showing the man an apartment for
rent. He shot them both in the head, and the bodies were left bound and
gagged in a truck bed. The Stockton man later confessed, saying he
targeted the women because they were lesbians, and he figured they
wouldn't have families that would miss them.
I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law
Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become
substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change
hearts and minds as well.
____________________
THE ARKANSAS PLAN
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am announcing my vision for the
design of the tax cut and I am sending a message to my Chairman and to
the President that I am willing to work with them on a tax cut as long
as it recognizes that Arkansas taxpayers also work hard and have earned
a share of the surplus in the form of a tax cut.
The President's tax rate cuts are skewed to the rich and the average
Arkansan won't see a real cut, if at all, until 2006. Forty-nine
percent of Arkansans have adjusted gross incomes under $20,000 and the
average household income in Arkansas is $29,019. About 85 percent of
Arkansas families don't make enough to qualify as one of the ``model
families'' that President Bush has been talking about in his speeches.
In other words, only about 15 percent of Arkansans would get a $1,600
tax cut. The other 85 percent of Arkansans deserve a real tax cut too.
I believe in creating a new ten percent bracket like the President,
but under my plan it be fully implemented this year. That will bring
thousands of dollars to Arkansas families immediately and over the next
5 years will mean significantly more to the Arkansas economy than will
the Bush plan.
I also want to expand the 15 percent bracket by $10,000. This will
mean that 85 percent of Arkansas taxpayers and small businesses never
make it out of the 15 percent bracket and will never pay more than
about an 11 percent effective Federal tax rate. Expanding the 15
percent bracket would mean that a couple earning $55,000 would get $980
more than they would under the Bush plan, regardless of whether they
have children or not. The only way for average citizens to get a
significant tax cut under the Bush plan is to have children. Single
people and people who are no longer raising their children deserve a
tax cut too, and I propose to give them one.
I do believe in doubling the child tax credit as the President
proposes. However, I believe it should be partially refundable for
working taxpayers as their Earned Income Tax Credit is phased out.
Approximately 140,000 Arkansas families, or 37 percent of Arkansas
families with children, will not benefit from the President's plan
because their incomes are too low to owe federal income taxes. By
making the child tax credit partially refundable, low-income working
parents would get the benefits of the child tax credit just like I do.
At the same time, I believe it is unfair to phase out the value of
exemptions and credits for high income individuals. What's good for the
goose is good for the gander. If we are going to give a $1,000 per-
child tax credit to working families, then we should give that credit
to all working families, rich and poor.
We also must fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. I have asked the
President in person, I have asked him in writing, ``How will your
Administration address the AMT?'' Many of you may not know that the
AMT, which is designed to prevent affluent taxpayers from sheltering
their tax liability in credits and deductions, will soon have an
unintended consequence for 37 million Americans. These middle income
workers will be paying higher rates and filing out more forms if we do
not act. At a minimum, the AMT exemptions should be raised and indexed,
and family credits should be protected from the AMT's bite.
With our private savings rate at a negative for the first time in our
history we should encourage more private savings by increasing the IRA
and 401(k) contribution limits as part of an overall retirement
security and expansion act. Increasing private savings is an important
way to keep capital reserve up and interest rates low. The fiscally
conservative thing to do is include the pension bill in this year's tax
relief.
I support eliminating the so-called marriage penalties in the tax
code, but we should do it in a way that is fair to widows and singles.
Taxpayers should not be punished for getting married, but nor should
they be punished when their spouse dies or if they choose not to get
married.
Lastly, the estate tax should be repealed within the next three
years. While the revenue estimates of repealing the estate tax have
been high, I believe there are many ways we can ensure that death is no
longer a taxable event without breaking the treasury. In the short run,
we may have to provide for a mark-to-market fee to provide for a
stepped-up basis for inherited property or a higher capital gains rate
for inherited property, but no tax would be paid unless the asset was
sold. In short, the U.S. tax code should not be an obstacle to family
farmers and small business people who want to pass on their legacy.
At the end of the day, Vice-President Cheney would get about a $1
million tax cut under my plan, instead of the $2.4 million he would get
under the Bush plan. However, average Arkansans would see thousands
more and those dollars will be spent and saved in Arkansas where they
belong. A family of four with a $30,000 income would get a $1,600 per
year tax cut which is approximately $484 more per year than they would
get under President Bush's plan. My plan would put more money in
Arkansas and the South, and would cost $400 billion less than the
President's $1.6 billion plan. That cost savings is important, because
ultimately,
[[Page 6041]]
I will not support any tax cut plan that would endanger the long-term
solvency of Social Security and Medicare and inhibit our ability to
retire the national debt.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday,
April 23, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,673,969,614,244.57, Five
trillion, six hundred seventy-three billion, nine hundred sixty-nine
million, six hundred fourteen thousand, two hundred forty-four dollars
and fifty-seven cents.
Five years ago, April 23, 1996, the Federal debt stood at
$5,106,372,000,000, Five trillion, one hundred six billion, three
hundred seventy-two million.
Ten years ago, April 23, 1991, the Federal debt stood at
$3,433,997,000,000, Three trillion, four hundred thirty-three billion,
nine hundred ninety-seven million.
Fifteen years ago, April 23, 1986, the Federal debt stood at
$1,959,815,000,000, One trillion, nine hundred fifty-nine billion,
eight hundred fifteen million.
Twenty-five years ago, April 23, 1976, the Federal debt stood at
$600,771,000,000, Six hundred billion, seven hundred seventy-one
million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion,
$5,073,198,614,244.57, Five trillion, seventy-three billion, one
hundred ninety-eight million, six hundred fourteen thousand, two
hundred forty-four dollars and fifty-seven cents during the past 25
years.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR ALAN CRANSTON
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
tributes by current and former members of the Senate and House of
Representatives at the memorial service for the late Senator Alan
Cranston be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Memorial Tribute to Sen. Alan Cranston by Senator Max Cleland
On February 6, over 200 admirers gathered in Hart SOB 902
to pay tribute to our dear friend Alan Cranston, who left us
on the last day of the year 2000. Joining with me as sponsors
of this event were the Senators from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller), California (Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Boxer), and
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the former Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. Simpson). Ten members and former members spoke,
and a short film about Senator Cranston's recent activities
was shown. At the end of the program, Alan's son, Kim, spoke.
It was a memorable afternoon for all in attendance.
The Program Cover pictured Alan and his beautiful, now
seven-year old, granddaughter Evan. On the second page
appeared the following words of the Chinese poet and
philosopher Lao-Tzu, which Alan carried with him every day:
A leader is best
When people barely know
That he exists,
Less good when
They obey and acclaim him,
Worse when
They fear and despise him.
Fail to honor people
And they fail to honor you.
But of a good leader,
When his work is done,
His aim fulfilled,
They will all say,
``We did this ourselves.''--Lao-Tzu
The program participants and sponsors were shown on the
third page as follows:
Musical Prelude: United States Army Strings.
Introductions and Closing: Judge Jonathan Steinberg.
Speakers: Senator Max Cleland, Senator Alan Simpson,
Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator
Barbara Boxer, Representative G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery,
Representative John A. Anderson, Representative George
Miller, Senator John Kerrey, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Kim
Cranston.
Family in attendance: Kim Cranston, Colette Penne Cranston,
Evan Cranston, and Eleanor (R.E.) Cranston Cameron.
Event Sponsors: Senators Cleland, Simpson, Rockefeller,
Kennedy, Feinstein, and Boxer.
The back page of the program set forth Senator Cranston's
Committee assignments and the acknowledgments for the
Tribute, as follows:
Senator Cranston's 24 years of service in the United States
Senate exceeded that of any California Democratic Senator and
was the second longest tenure of any California Senator. He
was elected Democratic Whip seven times, and his service of
14 years in that position is unequaled. His Committee service
was:
1969-93: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
1971-73 and 1975-79: Chairman, Subcommittee on Production
and Stabilization.
1973-75: Chairman, Subcommittee on Small Businesses.
1979-85: Chairman or Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on Financial Institutions.
1985-87: Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Securities.
1987-93: Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban
Affairs.
1969-81: Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (Human
Resources).
1969-71: Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs.
1971-73: Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroad Retirement.
1971-81: Chairman, Subcommittee on Child and Human
Development.
1981-93: Committee on Foreign Relations.
1981-85: Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Arms
Control, Oceans, International Operations, and Environment.
1985-93: Chairman or Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
1977-92: Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Chairman or
Ranking Minority Member.
In addition, Senator Cranston served on the Committees on
the Budget (1975-79) and on Nutrition and Human Needs (1975-
77), and on the Select Committee on Intelligence (1987-93).
Event Planning and Arrangements: Bill Brew, Fran Butler,
Kelly Cordes, Chad Griffin, Bill Johnstone, Susanne Martinez,
Dan Perry, Ed Scott, Jon Steinberg, Lorraine Tong, Elinor
Tucker.
As I said at the Tribute, I would not be in this body were
it not for Alan Cranston. My colleague, the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell), expressed that same sentiment in
her remarks. Alan Cranston will always be an inspiration for
us. He will live in our memories and the memories of all
those who served with him and were touched by the causes he
championed and in the hearts and minds of those he so ably
represented in his beloved State of California. Following are
the transcript of the Tribute, and the document,
``Legislative Legacy, Alan Cranston in the U.S. Senate, 1969-
1993,'' that was distributed at the Tribute.
A Legislative Legacy--Alan Cranston in the U.S. Senate, 1969-1993
An Overview
As an eight-year-old boy, Alan Cranston lost his first
election to be bench monitor in his Los Altos grammar school.
As an adult, he became the state's most electable Democrat
and one of the most durable and successful California
politicians of the 20th Century. During decades of political
and social turbulence, when no other California Democrat was
elected more than once to the U.S. Senate, Alan Cranston won
four Senate terms in the Capitol, serving a total of 24
years. It is a California record unmatched except for the
legendary Hiram Johnson, a Republican who held his Senate
seat from 1917 to 1945.
In addition, Cranston was elected to seven consecutive
terms as the Senate Democratic Whip, the number two party
position in the Senate. That, too, is an all-time Senate
record for longevity in a leadership post. Alan Cranston is
credited with rebuilding the Democratic Party in California
through grass- roots activism and organization. In the mid-
1950s, he organized the then- powerful California Democratic
Council, a vast network of party volunteers that in 1958
helped sweep Republicans from most statewide offices. Edmund
G. ``Pat'' Brown was elected governor, Democrats seized the
California Legislature, and Cranston began two terms as State
Controller of California.
Senator Cranston sought the Democratic Party nomination for
President in 1984. His campaign, though ultimately
unsuccessful, raised to new heights public support for
international arms control and a superpower freeze on nuclear
weapons.
In terms of political style, Senator Cranston drew upon an
earlier Earl Warren tradition of bipartisanship, and was well
served by a diversified base of political support.
Representing the California mega-state in the Senate,
Cranston skillfully balanced a wide array of insistent and
sometimes conflicting state interests. He steered a delicate
course between the state's giant agribusiness interests and
those of consumers, family farmers and farm workers; he
weighed the claims of home builders and growing communities
with the need to preserve open space and wildlife habitats;
and he nurtured and led the California epicenter of the
national arms control and peace movements, while effectively
representing the home of the nation's defense and aerospace
industry.
The record of Congressional measures from 1969 to 1993 adds
up to a catalogue of literally tens of thousands of
legislative actions on which there is a Cranston imprint.
These include the large events of the past quarter century--
Vietnam, the Cold War, civil rights, the rise of
environmentalism, conflict in the Middle East, Watergate, the
energy crisis, and equal rights for women.
[[Page 6042]]
The Cranston mark is on thousands of bills and amendments
he personally authored affecting virtually every aspect of
national life. Without this legislative record, America would
be a different and poorer place in the quality of life and
environment for a majority of our people. Rivers would be
more polluted, the air less clean, food less safe. Fewer
opportunities would be open to all citizens, fewer advances
made in medicine and science; there would be less safe
conditions in workplaces.
Despite facile and careless cynicism about the work of
government, the achievements of the nation's Legislative
Branch from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s have made a
distinct and meaningful difference in the lives of millions
of Americans. Alan Cranston's particular contributions to
progressive legislation is notable. The difference a single
U.S. Senator can make is demonstrated by a study of all votes
cast in the Senate over two decades in which the outcome was
decided by less than five votes and often by a single vote.
Between 1969 to 1989 there were over 2,500 such votes in
which Alan Cranston's influence often was critical to the
outcome.
The figures do not include thousands of legislative
decisions reached by less narrow margins. Nor do they reflect
the additional influence of Senator Cranston as a behind-the-
scene strategist, nose-counter, marshaler of forces and
shrewd compromiser who always lived to fight another day. The
sum of thousands of ``small'', quiet, often little-noticed
and uncelebrated legislative actions over near a quarter-
century adds up to steady progress in nearly every area of
American life.
As for one man's place in such a record, former Vice
President Walter Mondale called Senator Cranston: ``The most
decent and gifted member of the United States Senate.''
Even with so diverse a legislative record, certain points
of emphasis and priority emerge. Although never an ideologue,
Senator Cranston was passionate in pursuit of world peace,
for extending opportunities for those left out of the
mainstream, and for protecting the natural environment. Asked
by a reporter what he ``goes to the mat for,'' Cranston
replied: ``Peace, arms control, human rights, civil rights,
civil liberties. If there's an issue between some very
powerful people and some people without much power, my
sympathies start with those who have less power.''
During the eight years that remained to him after he left
the Senate, Alan Cranston worked tirelessly on issues of war
and peace, speaking out for human rights, and for preserving
the environment of the planet for present and future
generations. In 1996, he became chairman of the Global
Security Institute, a San Francisco-based research
organization which he founded together with former Soviet
President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mikhail S. Gorbachev
to promote world peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons.
EARLY HISTORY
Few people in modern history have entered the U.S. Senate
as freshmen better prepared than Alan Cranston to combine
lifelong concerns over foreign and domestic policy with an
understanding of the inner procedural, political and human
workings of the institution. It was a preparation which made
it possible to gain and hold on to Senate power as Democratic
Whip for 14 of his 24 years in Congress.
In 1936, as a 22-year-old foreign correspondent he joined
the International News Service (later part of United Press
International), immediately after graduating from Stanford
University. He was sent on assignments to Germany, Italy,
Ethiopia and England in years leading up to the outbreak of
World War II. He personally watched and listened as Adolph
Hitler whipped his audiences into mass frenzy. He saw
Mussolini strut before tens of thousands in Rome. He covered
London in the fateful years ``while England slept,'' and he
watched as the world seemed helpless to act against the dark
march of fascism.
Three years later, following his return to the United
States, Cranston learned that an English-language version of
Hitler's ``Mein Kampf'' was being distributed in the U.S. He
was alarmed to discover that, for propaganda purposes, parts
of the text had been purposefully omitted. These were
passages which would have made clear the nature and full
extent of Hitler's threat to the world. To warn Americans
against Hitler, he wrote a complete and accurate version of
the book, with explanatory notes making the Dictator's real
intentions clear. It was published in tabloid form and sold a
half-million copies before a copyright infringement suit
brought by agents of the Third Reich put a stop to its
further distribution.
Senator Cranston's strong commitment to human rights and
peace, and his alertness to the dangers of totalitarian one-
man rule, were clearly shaped by witnessing first hand the
rise of fascism in Europe and the deadly chain of events
leading to the Second World War and its Cold War aftermath.
His first work in Washington, serving in 1940 and 1941 as a
representative of the Common Cause for American Unity,
entailed lobbying Congress for fairness in legislation
affecting foreign born Americans. This activity gave him an
opportunity to learn at close range the inner workings of the
Senate.
With the outbreak of war, Cranston served as Chief of the
Foreign Language Division of the Office of War Information in
the Executive Offices of the President. When offered a draft
deferment in 1944, he declined it and enlisted in the Army as
a private, where he was first assigned to an infantry unit
training in the U.S. Because of his experience as a foreign
correspondent and journalist, he became editor of Army Talk.
His rank was sergeant by VJ Day.
While still in the Army, he began researching and writing a
book in hopes of influencing international decision-making in
the post-war world. It was an account of how, in the
aftermath of the first World War, a handful of willful men in
the U.S. Senate, opposed to President Wilson and the 14-point
peace plan, managed to prevent U.S. participation in the
League of Nations, ultimately undermining the peace and
setting the stage for a second World War.
In 1945, ``The Killing of the Peace'' by Alan Cranston was
published. The New York Times rated it one of the 10 best
books of the year. The book served to warn against the folly
of repeating the same isolationist mistakes that followed
World War I. The Cranston book also presented a meticulous
description of the byzantine inner workings of the U.S.
Senate during the debate over ratification of the League of
Nations treaty. At age 31, the future Senator revealed a full
appreciation of the critical role played by individual egos,
personalities and interpersonal relationships in the
legislative process, and showed how awareness to such human
factors could be critical in determining the outcome of a
vote.
The immediate post-war years in Washington and publication
of The Killing of the Peace marked the real beginning of
Cranston's determination to become a member of the Senate. He
wanted to enter that institution where he could promote world
peace and causes of social justice.
From 1949 to 1952 he served as national president of the
United World Federalists, dedicated to promoting peace
through world law. He was a principal founder of the
California Democratic Council, established to influence the
direction of the Democratic Party in the state, and was
elected as the first CDC President in 1953 and served until
1958.
He was elected California state controller in 1958, which
placed him among the top ranks of the party's statewide
elected officials. He was reelected in 1962 and served until
1966.
SENATE ACHIEVEMENTS
Foreign affairs
Elected to the Senate in l968, during the height of
fighting in Vietnam, Senator Cranston quickly allied with so-
called ``doves'' which were a distinct minority in Congress
at that time. Together with Senator Edward Brooke of
Massachusetts, Alan Cranston co-authored the first measure to
pass the Senate cutting off funds to continue the war in
Southeast Asia. The Brooke-Cranston Amendment paved the way
to the U.S. Congress ultimately asserting its prerogatives
over military spending and provided for the orderly
termination of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.
Senator Cranston played key roles in shaping the SALT and
START arms pacts, and in framing debate on virtually every
new weapon system, arms control issue and foreign treaty from
1969 to 1993. A recognized leader on the Foreign Relations
Committee, Alan Cranston was a highly respected voice on
behalf of arms control, nuclear non-proliferation, peaceful
settlement of international conflict, human rights around the
world, sensible and compassionate approaches to immigration
and refugee issues, foreign trade and long range solutions to
problems of famine, disease and oppression in the Third
World.
In addition to U.S.-Soviet relations, those specific areas
of foreign policy in which Senator Cranston made a
significant impact include the passage of the Panama Canal
Treaty, efforts to bar military aid to the Nicaraguan
contras, aid to Israel and efforts toward peace in the Middle
East, helping to bring a halt to U.S. involvement in a civil
war in Angola, and opposition to apartheid in South Africa.
Environmental legislation
Among the legacy of Alan Cranston's years in the Senate is
a wealth of parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, wild
rivers, scenic areas and coastline protection measures. With
just two bills in which Alan Cranston and Rep. Phillip Burton
of San Francisco teamed--the Omnibus Parks Act of 1978 and
the Alaska Lands Act of 1980--as much acreage was placed
under federal protection as all the parks lands created
earlier in the 20th Century combined. Senator Cranston was
the Senate sponsor of legislation creating the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, the Channel Islands National Park, a 48,000
acre addition to the Redwoods National Park, and the
inclusion of Mineral King into Sequoia National Park. He
sponsored 12 different wilderness bills which became law
between 1969 and 1982. He helped close Death Valley National
Monument to open pit mining and was an architect of the
[[Page 6043]]
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
He worked diligently throughout his Senate years for the
California Desert Protection Act, that called for setting
aside millions of acres of desert lands as wilderness and
park preserves, and creating better government conservation
efforts for a vast portion of the California desert
ecosystem. His efforts ultimately came to fruition when
Senator Dianne Feinstein, during the first Clinton term, was
able to enact into law the Cranston crusade for desert
preservation.
Even this long list does not tell the complete story of
Senator Cranston's environmental record, which includes clear
air and clean water legislation, control of toxic wastes,
liability for oil spills, restoration of fish and wildlife
resources, and support for new technologies for cleaner
fuels. No other period in American history has seen so much
been accomplished for environmental protection as the last
three decades of the 20th Century, and Senator Cranston was
an essential but largely unheralded architect of these
policies.
Civil rights/Civil liberties
In his first term as a Senator, Alan Cranston wrote the
amendment that extended to federal workers the civil rights
protections earlier mandated to private employers. He also
played a key strategic role in ending a filibuster which
threatened the extension of the Voting Rights Act. He
authored the first Senate bill to redress grievances of
Japanese-Americans interned in relocation camps during the
Second World War. Cranston co-authored landmark legislation
protecting the civil rights of institutionalized persons. He
was the first U.S. Senator to employ an openly-gay person on
his staff, and he fought official discrimination against
homosexuals in immigration laws and access to legal services.
Aware from his days as a journalist of the importance of
protecting news sources, Senator Cranston fought the Nixon
Administration to preserve an unfettered and free press in
America. He successfully blocked legislation in 1975 that
would have created an Official Secrets Act threatening First
Amendment freedoms.
Health care
Both on the Senate and Human Resources Subcommittee on
Health and Scientific Research, and as Chairman of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Cranston worked to secure
for all individuals access to health services necessary for
the prevention and treatment of disease and injury and for
the promotion of physical and mental well-being.
He authored the law, and extensions and refinements of it,
that provided for the development nationwide of comprehensive
medical services (EMS) systems and for the training of
emergency medical personnel. He steered the original
Emergency Medical Systems Act through Congress, then
persuaded a reluctant President Nixon to sign it into law. A
few years later, the Cranston measure was quite possibly
responsible for saving another President's life. It was at a
special trauma care unit at George Washington University
Medical Center in Washington, D.C., established in part by
the EMS law, where President Reagan's life was saved
following an assassination attempt in 1981.
Senator Cranston also wrote laws that have made a broad
range of family planning services available to individuals
who cannot otherwise afford or gain ready access to them. He
authored legislation that improved services to families of
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and encouraged expanded
research efforts. Legislation to support community efforts to
control venereal diseases and tuberculosis were shaped by
Senator Cranston. He authored several provisions of law
substantially increasing funding for AIDS research,
education, and public health activities.
He wrote the law that expanded and coordinated federal
research in arthritis, and he helped create the National
Institute on Aging. Totally separate from his role as a
federal legislator, he helped establish the private, non-
profit Alliance for Aging Research to spur research
scientists to find answers for the chronic disabling
conditions of aging, including Alzheimer's Disease.
His commitment to healthy aging was also personal. A
lifelong physical fitness buff and accomplished runner, he
set a world record for his age group in 1969, running the
100-yard dash in 12.6 seconds. He broke his own record three
years later running in the University of Pennsylvania Relays
at age 59.
Rights for persons with disabilities
When Alan Cranston came to the Senate, disabled persons had
virtually no legal protection against unjust discrimination
and there had been little progress toward removing physical
barriers that excluded them from public buildings and
facilities. He was acutely aware of these injustices due to
crippling disabilities suffered by members of his immediate
family. He often characterized people with disabilities as
``the one civil rights constituency any of us can be thrust
into without a moment's warning.'' He led efforts to enact
legislation in 1973 for the first time outlawing
discrimination in federally-funded programs and requiring
that federally-funded buildings be made accessible to
disabled individuals, and promoting the employment and
advancement of persons with disabilities by the federal
government and federal contractors. The sloping sidewalk
curbs for wheelchairs on nearly every street in the nation
stem from Alan Cranston's early advocacy for disabled people.
Children and families
Senator Cranston authored a rich body of legislative
reforms that humanized and vastly improved adoption
assistance, foster care, child custody and child care. He was
a leader in sponsoring child abuse and neglect prevention
laws and in investigating the abuse of children in
institutions.
He was responsible for extending the original authorization
of the Head Start pre-school education program. He authored
successful bills extending Medicaid coverage for prenatal
health care for low-income pregnant women. He co-wrote the
landmark L975 law designed to provide educational
opportunities for handicapped children, and he was a strong
supporter and developer of children's nutrition and feeding
programs throughout his time in the Senate.
Many private organizations honored Cranston for his work,
including the North American Conference on Adoptable
Children, which named him ``Child Advocate of the Year'' in
1979, the California Adoption Advocacy Network, the Child
Welfare League of America, the Day Care and Child Development
Council of America, the California Child Development
Administrators Association, and the JACKIE organization,
which cited ``his leadership in obtaining national adoption
and foster care reform.''
Veterans
Though opposed to the Vietnam War, he was deeply
compassionate toward those who fought America's most
unpopular war. Able to separate the war from the warriors, he
was an early champion for the Vietnam veterans, especially
for improving health care in VA hospitals and clinics.
In his first year in the Senate, Alan Cranston was assigned
chairmanship of a Labor Committee subcommittee dealing with
veterans. He used that post to draw national attention to
inadequate and shocking conditions in VA hospitals, which
were overwhelmed by the returning wounded from the Vietnam
war. When a full Committee on Veterans Affairs was
established in the Senate, he chaired its subcommittee on
health and hospitals and later chaired the full committee for
a total of nine years.
Among a few highlights of this record: improvements in
compensation for service-connected disabled veterans,
education and training programs tailored to Vietnam-era
veterans, requirements for federal contractors to give
preference in hiring for Vietnam-era and disabled veterans,
and a long list of initiatives to improve health care in the
VA medical system.
Alan Cranston wrote the law that created a national network
of VA counseling facilities known as ``Vet Centers'' to aid
returning Vietnam veterans in coping with readjustment to
civilian society, and helping to identify and treat the
condition known as post-traumatic stress syndrome.
He was among the first to draw attention to the health
problems believed associated with exposure to Agent Orange
and he gave the VA specific authority to provide Vietnam
veterans with medical care for those conditions. He also
helped bring to light health problems of veterans who were
exposed to nuclear radiation as part of U.S. government
atomic testing in the 1940s and 50s, and he fought to allow
compensation for subsequent medical effects of the exposure.
For more than a decade he fought to allow veterans legal
rights to appeal VA decisions on claims for benefits and
ultimately succeeded in establishing the United States Court
of Veterans Appeals. His very last day in the Senate, Alan
Cranston was responsible for passage of three veterans bills:
Veterans Re-employment Rights, Veterans Health-Care Services,
and the Veterans Health Care Act.
Women
Another constant throughout the Cranston Senate career has
been his efforts aimed at eradicating sex discrimination and
providing equal opportunities for women.
He worked hard, both in the U.S. Congress and in the
California legislature, for passage and ratification of the
Equal Rights Amendment. He authored provisions of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act precluding discrimination in
hiring and retaining women employees and those who are
pregnant. On the Banking Committee he pioneered laws
prohibiting discrimination against women in obtaining credit
and benefitting from insurance policies.
He consistently championed women's access to health care
and reproductive health services. He was the Senate author of
the Freedom of Choice Act to codify into federal law the Roe
v. Wade court decision.
Addenda
Any summary of the Cranston record would be incomplete
without also noting the following:
Senator Cranston helped lead the opposition in the U.S.
Senate to G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth, both
nominated by President Richard Nixon to
[[Page 6044]]
the Supreme Court. Both nominations were defeated.
When Robert Bork was nominated to the Court, it was a vote
count taken by Democratic Whip Alan Cranston that first
showed the nomination could be overturn. Senator Cranston
skillfully used this information to persuade swing vote
Senators to reject the Bork nomination.
During the Carter Presidency, when Cranston had the
patronage power to recommend federal judicial appointments,
he instead established a bipartisan committee with the
California Bar Association to assist in screening candidates
based on merit. Under this system four women, four African-
Americans, two Latinos and one Asian were appointed to the
U.S. District Court in California. In addition, one African-
American, one woman, and one Latino were appointed as U.S.
Attorneys.
He long championed federal support for mass transit,
including the Surface Transit Act, which for the first time
opened up the Federal Highway Act to allow mass transit to
compete for federal funds on an equal basis with highways.
As Housing Subcommittee Chairman on the Banking Committee,
he lead efforts to pass the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1987,
the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1987 and then succeeded in
gaining enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act in October 1990, a landmark law that
set a new course for federal housing assistance, stressing
production of affordable housing units, improved FHA
insurance, elderly and handicapped housing expansion, special
housing for people with AIDS, and reform of public housing.
Passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
culminated Senator Cranston's 24 years of major legislative
achievements steadily aimed at making housing more available
and fostering community economic growth.
He helped strengthen the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act, the basic law which allows the federal
government to regulate hazardous waste material to insure
that it is safely managed.
He headed efforts in the Senate to break the filibuster
mounted against Labor Law Reform.
Over more than two decades, he provided diligent oversight
and direction for all federal volunteer programs, including
the Peace Corps, VISTA, the ACTION Agency, Foster
Grandparents, and the Retired Senior Volunteer Program.
Post-Senate Career
From 1993 until his death just hours before the first day
of 2001, Alan Cranston pursued the opportunity afforded by
the end of the Cold War to abolish nuclear weapons. He worked
on the issue as Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation, and
then as President of the Global Security Institute in San
Francisco, which he helped establish. An important
accomplishment of the Institute was to put together, with a
coalition of groups called Project Abolition, the Responsible
Security Appeal, which calls for action leading to the
elimination of all nuclear weapons. At Cranston's urging,
this document was signed by such notable people as Paul
Nitze, General Charles Horner, and former President Jimmy
Carter. Project Abolition, founded by Cranston, promises to
be the foundation for a wider nuclear abolition campaign in
the years ahead.
During the decade of the 1990s, he traveled to the Indian
Subcontinent, in Central Asia and elsewhere, working with
national leaders to accommodate peaceful change in the world,
especially the development of pluralistic, free societies in
the former Soviet Union. In the very last years of his life,
he was more often at home, in the sprawling Spanish Colonial
style residence in Los Altos Hills, where he was surrounded
by three generations of his family. He assembled a
magnificent library encompassing a wide range of California,
American and International history and politics, in thousands
of books, artworks, memorabilia and photographs. To this
library would come many friends, political allies old and
new, former staff and an occasional journalist intent on an
interview. Former Senator Cranston made this assessment of
his priorities in one interview, just months before his
death:
``I am an abolitionist on two fronts. I believe we have to
abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us, and I think
we have to eliminate the incredibly important and significant
role of money in politics before we're going to have our
democracy working as it should work. If we blow ourselves up
in a nuclear war, no other issue, no matter how important it
may seem to be, is going to matter. And until we get money
out of politics, money is going to affect every issue that
comes along, often adversely to the interest of the public.
So let's abolish both.''
Years earlier, while preparing to retire from the United
States Senate, he expressed gratitude for the opportunities
to make a difference on behalf of California and people
throughout the world:
``It has been a privilege I have cherished and for which I
can never adequately thank the people of California. It is my
hope that many of the accomplishments achieved over these
past 24 years in the areas of world peace, the environment,
and in the effort to secure a better quality of life for
millions of Americans will survive and serve as the basis of
continued progress by others in behalf of future
generations.''
____
February 6, 2001, 2:00 pm, Memorial Tribute to Alan Cranston, U.S.
Senator 1969--1993, Hart Senate Office Building, Room 902, Washington,
D.C.
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. On behalf of the sponsors,
Senators Cleland, Simpson, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Feinstein,
and Boxer, welcome to this Memorial Tribute to Senator Alan
Cranston. At the outset, I want to express our appreciation
to the U.S. Army Strings for their Prelude musical offerings
today. Also, thanks to C-Span for covering this event. This
turnout today is itself a wonderful testimonial to the work
of this man of the Senate, Alan Cranston, and we are
absolutely delighted that his family has journeyed here from
California to share in this Tribute--his son, Kim, and
daughter-in-law Colette, and their child and Alan's
granddaughter, Evan, who graces the program cover with Alan,
and we are so happy that Alan's wonderful, 91-year-old
sister, R.E., who wrote a biography about Alan, is with us as
well.
During his 24 years as a Senator, Alan Cranston did much to
better the lives of the people of his state and the people of
this country and all countries. You will hear much about
those efforts and achievements today. In my role, I am a
proxy for the scores of staff who worked for Alan Cranston
over his Senate career. I began in March 1969, almost at the
beginning, and stayed 21 and a half years. I've always
thought that one could tell a great deal about the kind of
person someone was by how those who worked most closely with
him felt about him. I think it speaks volumes about Alan
Cranston--and Alan is the way he asked his staff always to
refer to him--that so many worked with him for so long. In
fact, five worked for him for his full 24 years; two others
worked more than 20 years; five others for 15 years or more,
and three or four for 10 or more years. I doubt that any
Senator has surpassed that record for staff loyalty and staff
satisfaction.
Alan was wonderful to work for and with. He was not a
saint, of course, but he was a gentlemen, through and
through. He gave respect to get respect. To me he was a
mentor, a teacher, an inspiration, and a friend. I loved him.
I will always remember him. And when I do, I will think back
to our last meeting--at dinner on November 13. He was strong
and vibrant and full of passionate commitment to the cause of
the elimination of nuclear weapons. I remember our hugging
goodbye. It was a great hug, but I wish I had held on a
littler longer.
A few announcements before we get to our speakers: First of
all, I want to remind each of you to please sign one of the
guest books in the lobby before you leave. I hope you've each
gotten a program. If not, you can pick one up on the way out.
And also on the way out, there is a paper on Senator
Cranston's legislative legacy in the Senate.
Before I introduce our first speaker, I want to note the
presence here--now or expected--in addition to those who will
speak, of many distinguished members of the Senate and House:
Senator Rockefeller, who is one of our sponsors; Senator
Lugar, Senator Leahy, Senator Dodd, Senator Bingaman, Senator
Sarbanes, Senator Dorgan, former Senator DeConcini, and
Representatives Waxman, Filner, Roybal, Capps, and Harmon.
Also with us is former Senator Harris Wofford, who spoke so
eloquently at the Grace Cathedral in San Francisco on January
16, and Mark Schneider, former Director of the Peace Corps,
which Harris Wofford was instrumental in starting, in which
Senator Dodd served as a volunteer in Central America, and in
which Alan Cranston believed so deeply. We are also honored
to have the presence of three Cabinet members, all from
California--Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta,
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, and Secretary of
Veterans Affairs Tony Principi.
Our first speaker has timed it impeccably. (Laughter.) Our
first speaker is, fittingly, the lead sponsor of today's
tribute. Simply put, Alan Cranston loved Max Cleland--as do
I. They first met in 1969, and I'm sure Senator Cleland will
talk about that. Alan was truly overjoyed at Max's election
to the Senate in 1996. I want to express my gratitude to Max
personally and to his staff, Bill Johnstone, Farrar Johnston,
and Andy VanLandingham, for all of their help with the
arrangements for this event.
And now our first speaker, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia.
(Applause.)
Senator Max Cleland. Thank you all very much and thank you
Jon Steinberg for being uncharacteristically brief.
(Laughter.)
I see so many of my colleagues here. Really my first real
exposure to the United States Senate came about because Alan
Cranston cared. He was an unusual individual. I visited the
Dirksen Building here for the first time in December of 1969.
I was still basically a patient in the VA hospital system
when I was asked to appear before something called the Senate
Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs about how the VA was
handling returning Vietnam war veterans.
[[Page 6045]]
That meeting was chaired by a tall, lean freshman California
senator named Alan Cranston. I really didn't know him then,
but it became the start of a three-decade friendship.
In 1974, I ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in
Georgia, and, other than my own priority for my own race, my
second priority in the whole world in terms of politics was
to make sure Alan Cranston got reelected in 1974. Actually,
Alan was very kind to me, and brought me out to California,
and I got a chance to campaign for him and kind of clear out
some of the cobwebs that I had in my own mind about politics
and about life. We campaigned together and I found him just
as inspiring and invigorating in that campaign as when I had
met him in '69.
It's amazing how life works. Little did I know that, as
someone from Georgia, someone from California would be
critical in my continued service in public life. I did lose
my race for lieutenant governor in 1974 and, therefore, was
unemployed. Christmas Eve, 1974, I called my friend Jonathan
Steinberg, and said ``I just wanted to wish you the happiest
of holidays'' and said ``by the way, if you're looking for
anybody who wants to work, I'm available.'' He said, ``are
you serious?'' And I said ``I am deadly serious.'' Well, it
was Alan Cranston that made it possible for me to get a
$12,500-a-year job on the staff of the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee in the spring of 1975. That was more money
than I'd ever made in my whole entire life.
I was there a couple of years and, in the summer of 1976,
when a young man from Georgia named Jimmy Carter seemed like
he was destined to win the Democratic primary, Alan Cranston
talked to me and said ``I think you ought to be the new head
of the Veterans' Administration.'' That scared me to death. I
said, ``well, if you really think I can do it, let's go for
it.'' He talked to Senator Nunn and talked to Senator
Talmadge. By the August convention of the American Legion, a
convention in Seattle, Senator Cranston pulled Jimmy Carter
aside and said ``I have two requests.'' I don't know what the
other one was, but he said ``the second one is to make Max
Cleland head of the VA.'' And Jimmy Carter replied, ``I love
Max Cleland.''
So President Carter wound up in January 1977 as President
of the United States, and Alan Cranston wound up as Chairman
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I only had two
friends in Washington; one was President, and the other was
Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. (Laughter.) So I
was nominated in March of 1977, as the youngest head of the
Veterans' Administration, and, thanks to Alan Cranston, I was
confirmed in record time, and took over that agency, with
really the support of Jon Steinberg and Alan. They were my
constant guides, and sometimes spurs, and encouraged me all
the way.
One of the things I'm proudest of that we were able to do,
is put together something called the Vet Center Program. Alan
Cranston, since 1971, had been introducing in the Senate
something called psychological readjustment counseling for
Vietnam veterans and their families. It would usually pass
the Senate, die in the House, and had no Presidential
support; but I was able to talk to President Carter, we were
able to put the administration behind this legislation. It
passed, and we were able to sign it into law, and I put
together one of the very first Vet Centers in 1980 in Van
Nuys, California. Now, there are some 200 scattered around
the country. Some three-and-a-half million veterans and their
families have received counseling through this program, and
Alan Cranston was basically responsible.
Let me just say that, in 1973, he helped to pass
legislation that helped the disabled in this country, that
required that federally-funded buildings be made accessible,
that promoted the hiring and advancement of people with
disabilities by the Federal government. He established
something called the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board, which has the responsibility for
setting standards for accessibility and for assisting and
forcing compliance with accessibility laws. I was named to
that Board by President Carter in 1979.
Throughout the remainder of the 70s, Alan worked to revamp
federally-assisted state voc-rehab programs, sponsoring laws
that gave priority to the most seriously disabled. In 1980,
he sponsored legislation to make some improvements in that
program at the VA, and in 1990 he was a leading cosponsor of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has been a pioneer
piece of legislation, as we all know.
I just want you to know that I wouldn't be in the United
States Senate, I wouldn't have ever been head of the
Veterans' Administration, without the mild-mannered
distinguished gentleman from the great state of California. I
mourn his passing, and we will miss him. God bless you.
(Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Thank you very much, Max.
Speaking of the ADA, I see Senator Harkin here. We welcome
you.
Alan referred to our next speaker as his best friend on the
Republican side. They served together as their respective
party leaders on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as
Assistant Floor Leaders, or Whips, as they were also called.
Another tall, lanky, hairline-challenged Alan, former Senator
Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming.
Senator Alan K. Simpson. Jonathan and former colleagues and
friends and family, Kim, Colette, Evan, and Eleanor, and
Cabinet members, including one Norm Mineta, who I met at the
age of 12 in the war relocation center at Hart Mountain. He
was behind wire, I wasn't, and I should have been and he
shouldn't have. (Laughter.) But, anyway, it's a long,
wonderful friendship, with a guy I love, and I'm so damn
proud of you, pal, even when you did that when you were in
Boy Scouts, I'll never forget. (Laughter.)
Well, it's a great honor and privilege to honor my old
friend. To be asked is very, very moving to me, and I want to
share just a few memories and thoughts about a very special
friend. I came to the Senate in '79. Al was Chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee, and that's when I first met Max.
I said, ``Max, you have a wonderful job there, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; veterans never pick on each other--ha, ha,
ha.'' Well, anyway, it was an interesting time, Max, wasn't
it? Well, enough of that. Butch is here and he would correct
anything that I said. But it fell to my pleasant luck to soon
become the ranking member in 1980, the Reagan Administration.
Well, I knew who Al was, I knew of his journalistic prowess,
of his warning to his countrymen about Adolf Hitler, and the
two versions of ``Mein Kampf'', one for domestic consumption
and one for the naive and the unwary, and Alan was sending
out the alert. I knew of his athletic achievements and his
stamina, and I very soon learned of his powerful loyalty to
America's veterans.
He was so cordial to me, and his staff, so very helpful to
this new, pea-green freshman. And what a staff it was: Jon
Steinberg, Ed Scott, Bill Brew, Babette Polzer. Well, I
sought their counsel, and plumbed their expertise. Al would
occasionally check up on me, ``how are you? Can we be of more
help?'' I said, ``I need a lot more help.'' But then I built
my own staff. And, oh, to all of you who will be deprived of
staff one day. Staff deprivation is a serious issue
(laughter); it is the most shocking of the transitions
(laughter), and my wife, a beautiful woman of 46 years, she
said ``Alan, your staff is gone, you have no staff, they are
not here, and I am not one of your staff.'' (Laughter.) But,
there was Biblical precedent for this, you look it up in the
Good Book, it says, ``Jacob died leaning on his staff''.
(Laughter.) Now, so along came Ken Bergquist and one Tony
Principi, in those early years. Tony seems to have moved
along nicely in life, a wonderful human being with rare
gifts, who has been bestowed again on the veterans and the
people of this country. He will be serving very wisely and
very well as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and I'm damn
proud of you, too, pal.
Tom Harvey then came on. But Tony and Jon Steinberg became
a very dynamic duo, they worked with Tom Harvey in those
early years. And, as I say then, in '80, I became in the
majority, and the first call I received after the election
was from Al Cranston. Of course, who else? In that cheery
voice, he said ``congratulations, Mr. Chairman.'' Well, I
thought, the power, I felt the surge . . . (laughter) . . .
and I thought how like him to do that. Well, we cranked out
some good legislation together. With Sonny here, another dear
friend on the other side of the aisle, and John Paul
Hammerschmidt, then Bob Stump, those were men of my faith, my
political faith. And Sonny used to sit next to me and say:
``Don't do it pal. I know what you're going to do. Just shut
up, won't you?'' (Laughter.) I know we're not going to let
that get away now, Sonny.
Anyway, the changing of the guard went well. The only hitch
was that all of the veterans organizations had selected
National Commanders and Officers from California. Well, you
know how that goes. And now their guy was gone, and the
cowboy from Wyoming was in the saddle. Well that was very
much fun to watch, I loved it. It was painful for Jonathan,
but I loved it. And we were able to, when I took over, we
were able to get Steinberg's statutory language down to one
paragraph in one page. We never let him go two pages with one
paragraph. And he had a tendency to do that.
Then, in 1984, I was honored to become the Assistant
Majority Leader, and who was the Assistant Minority Leader?
Al Cranston. We worked closely together. We enjoyed each
other, we trusted each other. We gave good support and
counsel to Bob Dole and George Mitchell, and we thought it
was a silly idea, but that we oughta make things work. And
even when Al was running for President, imagine me, being the
ranking member of a committee with Kennedy and Hart and
Cranston, all three of them running for President. I went to
them and I said ``you cannot use these chores of mine for
your great cycle, and I won't ever use the committee to
embarrass you'' That's the kind of friendship I had with Ted,
with Al, with Gary, it was very special, and it can be that
way again. I urge it upon you all. Anyway, he ran for
President, he gave it his all, as he did in every phase of
his life, but the brass ring eluded, eluded his grip, and he
came back to his Senate home, his pride intact. The only time
I really, really flustered him, I was flush with power. Now a
member of the majority, the fever of the majority burned in
[[Page 6046]]
my bosom like a hot Gospel. I ambled over to his offices, his
spacious offices, great view, two fireplaces, couches, cozy
chairs, comfort, oh, and I said ``Al, yes I think this will
do very nicely [(laughter)] for my new Whip office.'' And the
blood drained from his face. And I said: ``No, no, just
kidding, Al. You represent millions, I represent thousands.
But when the wind shifts around here, and you Dems have the
horses, don't let `em come around my office with a tape
measure and some greedy looking guy with a clipboard.'' And
he said, ``it's a deal.'' And we had a handshake. Then the
time came, and no one ever darkened my door, no unworthies
with tape measures ever came to see me.
So, we legislated together, we argued, we collaborated, we
joshed and laughed with each other, we took pleasure in
confusing people. Same first name, same hairstyle; ``hairing
impaired'' is what we called it in political correctness.
Same gaunt, emaciated frame. Same gait, same grin. And,
people would come up to me and say, ``I just think the world
of you and you ran for President, and your views on the
environment and nuclear freeze thrill me to death.''
(Laughter.) And I'd say, ``No, no; I'm Al Simpson,'' and
they'd say ``Not you!'' (Laughter.) And Al said he got that
in reverse about, you know, twice a month, too, so we would
compare that, and our constituents were often not in
alignment, you might imagine. But the best one, though, and
then I'm going to stop: Cheney, Gulf War, Secretary of
Defense, he called and he said, ``we're going over to a game
in Baltimore; bring Ann'', and we went over to the game, and
53,000 Oriole fans, ``Hey Cheney, we love ya! Great stuff!''
You know, I said ``Boy, this is getting bad in here.'' We
left in the seventh inning and went back down through the
bowels, where all the guys, the beer drinkers and the cigar
smokers, were, and they went ``Hey, Cheney, baby, you're all
right--we love ya!'' And I turned to him and I said, ``You
know, they never treated you like this in Casper.'' And a guy
from the audience said ``Hey, I know the big guy, too; that's
Al Cranston!'' (Laughter.) So, I can assure you he loved that
story (laughter), when I told him that.
Well, he handled life well. Stuck to his guns, worked
through pain, met life full in the face, as if in a track
meet, headed for the tape, and he loved that thrill. Many
would have buckled; not Al. The pain of loss of the
Presidency, the pain of loss of family members, the pain of
loss of Norma to Parkinson's Disease that withered her, that
withered their union. The pain of cancer, the pain of
accusation and assault by the media, the pain from his peers
at that time; we talked about that, oh yes we did, of that
sense of being singled out, very painful.
And he left the Senate and went on to vital other things,
and meaningful things in his life, undaunted, head high,
smile on his face, fire in the belly, finishing the course
laid out. And we knew on one unknown day he would be taken
from us. And we shall miss him. But not mourn him. For he was
a man of vigor and joy and vision. And my life is much richer
for having shared a significant piece of it with Alan
Cranston. A race well run, my old friend. God rest his soul.
(Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Senator Simpson, we greatly
appreciate your having rearranged your schedule to come down
here from New York and we know you have to leave to go back
there.
We're going to show a very short film now, it's only two or
three minutes, but we thought we ought to have Alan with us.
Film
Narrator. Moscow, Winter, 1998.
Voice. Alan, you don't wear a coat in the Russian winter?
Alan Cranston. I don't believe in them.
Voice. He doesn't believe in them. It's like John Kennedy,
it's . . .
Narrator. That was Alan in retirement. For most people, a
time to slow down. But at 84, as he approached the Russian
Duma, Alan Cranston was a man on a lifelong mission.
Alan Cranston. I got into all this way back shortly after
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I met Albert Einstein. He told me, as
he told others, that the whole human race could be wiped out
by nuclear weapons. I've been working on it ever since.
Narrator. And forty years later, after trillions had been
spent on weapons of mass destruction, Alan emerged with a
collection of allies that astonished even him.
Alan Cranston. One very dramatic moment, when Lee Butler,
who had command of all of our nuclear weapons, gave his first
public address at the State of the World Forum, in San
Francisco, revealing the concerns he had developed about the
whole deterrence policy and the ongoing dangers from reliance
on nuclear weapons. And, as he spoke, presiding right next to
him was Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the country that we
would have destroyed. At the very end of this remarkable
speech, Gorbachev and Butler stood up and embraced each
other. That was a very dramatic moment.
Two weeks ago, General Butler and I made public a statement
by 48 past and present heads of state and some 75 other
national leaders from 48 nations, advocating specific steps
towards abolition. Despite these and other favorable
developments, there is significant doubt, skepticism,
cynicism, and outright opposition to much of this. So,
plainly, there is much to do, and we have a lot of hard
thinking to do about what is in order. But let me say in
closing that I do not believe that we need to wait, and I do
not believe that we can afford to wait, until the end of the
next century, to fulfill the obligation of our generation to
all generations that preceded us and all generations that
hopefully will follow us, to deal with the threat to all life
that exists and is implicit in nuclear weapons. Thank you.
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. That film that was pulled
together from a larger documentary by George Crile, a former
CBS producer, who has developed documentaries on nuclear arms
for ``60 Minutes'' and CNN. We are indebted to him and the
Global Security Institute, of which Alan Cranston was
President, for making that film available to us.
And now we will go a little bit out of order, and hear from
one of this event's sponsors, the Senior Senator from
California, whose work with Alan Cranston goes back many,
many years and who, among many other achievements, carried on
successfully with some very important environmental
initiatives that Senator Cranston began.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. (Applause.)
Senator Dianne Feinstein. Thank you very much. Thank you.
It's really a great honor and a privilege to be here. I just
want to recognize two members of the California House
delegation that came in. First is Lois Capps, from the Santa
Barbara area, and Jane Harmon, from the southern Los Angeles
area. And I'm not sure whether Paul Wellstone and Jeff
Bingaman were introduced earlier, but I want everybody to
know that they're here, too.
Alan Simpson is a hard act to follow, there's no question
about that. I look at life this way: That we're here but for
an instant in an eternity. No one really knows when that
instant is over, and the only thing that really matters is
what we do with that instant. Because, when it's over,
there's nothing we can take with us other than the legacy,
leave behind. Alan Cranston first came into my life in 1962,
and that's when I first met his sister, R.E., and it was in
his campaign for State Controller; believe it or not, it was
the first campaign for which I ever volunteered, and so I've
always kind of taken a special interest in a lot of his
achievements. From that point on, I found this former long
distance runner really to be a tireless workhorse for all
Californians, and, as a matter of fact, for all Americans.
This was a man who really loved the intricacies of the
legislative process. He was the consummate vote counter. He
possessed the uncanny ability to assess competing camps, to
quickly find where votes would fall and determine whether the
best course of action was to fight or compromise.
Unfortunately, neither my friend Barbara Boxer nor I really
had an opportunity to work with him in his nearly quarter of
a century here in the Senate, but I think these traits are
legendary, I think they're known by all.
Alan Cranston yielded a whole array of wonderful
accomplishments, but I want to just concentrate today on a
few things in the environment. And, in the true sprit of the
legendary Californian conservationist John Muir, Alan
Cranston became a very passionate architect of measures to
preserve our God-given natural treasures. Alan Cranston was
the original author of something called the Desert Protection
Act. Shortly after I won in 1993, and knew I was coming to
Washington, the phone rang, and Alan said, ``Would you be
willing to take over the effort to pass a Desert Protection
Act?'' And I said, ``Of course.'' And we came back and we
revised the language, rewrote the bill somewhat, changed some
of the concepts, and moved it ahead. But, the basic
originator of this, let there be no doubt, was Alan Cranston.
The bill was filibustered, but we were lucky in the Senate,
we got it through, and it became a reality in 1994. And the
legislation created the largest park and wilderness
designation in our nation. Over six million acres, two new
National Parks, Death Valley and Joshua Tree, and one
National Preserve, the East Mojave. And so because of that,
we have actually protected, well I said six, but it's
actually closer to seven million acres of pristine California
desert wilderness for all time. Thank you, Alan Cranston.
He was also the lead sponsor of legislation which
established the Golden Gate and the Santa Monica National
Recreation Area, the Channel Islands National Park, a 48,000
acre addition to the Redwoods National Park, and the
inclusion of Mineral King into the Sequoia National Park. He
also sponsored twelve different wilderness bills that became
law between 1969 and 1982. He helped close Death Valley
National Monument to open-pit mining. He helped craft the
Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and
with just two bills, on which he teamed with the late and
wondrous Phillip Burton of San Francisco, the Omnibus Parks
Act of 1978, and the Alaska Lands Act of 1980, as much
acreage was placed under federal protection as all the park
lands created earlier in the twentieth century combined.
So, I can truthfully say, without his service, America
would have been a different, and certainly a poorer place, in
terms of our environment and the quality of life for many of
our citizens. Alan Cranston leaves a legacy of preservation
that will be remembered
[[Page 6047]]
and enjoyed and certainly by his beautiful seven-year
granddaughter Evan, who is here today. And I think, for my
granddaughter, for Barbara's grandson, and for all of us, who
really look at this land and want to do what we can to
protect it.
This was a very special Californian. And life wasn't always
easy for Alan, either. But I think his ability to keep his
eye on the goal, to establish what he established, whether it
was from the translation of Mein Kampf, to his work against
nuclear devastation, to his environmental record, Alan
Cranston truly lived that instant in eternity, and he has
truly left us a good legacy. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. I'm sure there are others that I
failed to mention. I thank Senator Feinstein. I know that
Senator Reid is also here, and again I apologize if I missed
anyone.
No Senator has worked on more causes closer to Alan
Cranston's heart and soul than has Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
I am particularly grateful to him, because it was through his
chief counsel, Jim Flug, who is also here today, that I was
introduced to and came to work for Alan in 1969. Senator
Cranston and Senator Kennedy served together for 12 years on
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, which Senator
Kennedy chaired from 1987 to 1995 and again for 17 days this
year.
Our next speaker, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
(Applause.)
Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Thank you, Jonathan. To Kim, and
Colette, and Evan, and R.E.--let me begin by saying that I
loved Alan Cranston too. I will never forget the 24 years of
friendship and leadership and achievement with which he
graced the Senate and the nation. And so it's a special
privilege and honor for me to be part of this tribute today.
Alan is profoundly missed by his family and friends, his
colleagues in the Congress, and by all those around the world
who pursue the great goals of hope and progress and peace.
I must say--I grew up thinking Cranston was a city in Rhode
Island. But Alan taught each of us that Cranston stands for
something else as well--the very best in public service.
Alan loved to lead behind the scenes--for 14 of those 24
Senate years with us, he was our Democratic whip, and he
wrote the book about the job. In those great years, we used
to tease Alan about the position, because so few people
outside Congress knew what it involved. Since Alan was from
California, a lot of people thought the Minority Whip was the
name of a Leather Bar in Malibu. (Laughter.)
But seriously, Alan was a giant of his day on many issues,
and his concern for social justice made him a leader on them
all. We served together for many years on the Labor Committee
and especially the Health Subcommittee, and his insights were
indispensable. I always felt that if we'd had another Alan
Cranston or two in those years, we'd have actually passed our
Health Security Act, and made health care the basic right for
all that it ought to be, instead of just an expensive
privilege for the few.
Perhaps the greatest legacy that Alan left us was his able
and tireless work for democracy and world peace. Every
village in the world is closer to that goal today because of
Alan. No one in the Senate fought harder or more effectively
for our nuclear weapons freeze in the 1980's, or for nuclear
arms control. His hope for a nuclear-free future still
represents the highest aspiration of millions--even
billions--throughout the world.
I also recall Alan's pioneering efforts to press for Senate
action to end the war in Vietnam, and his equally able
leadership for civil rights at home and human rights around
the world. We know how deeply he felt about injustice to
anyone anywhere. And his leadership in the battle against
apartheid in South Africa was indispensable.
Throughout his brilliant career, the causes of civil rights
and human rights were central to Alan's being and his
mission--and America and the world are better off today
because Alan Cranston passed this way.
A key part of all his achievements was his unique ability
to translate his ideals into practical legislation. Few if
any Senators have been as skilled as Alan in the art of
constructive legislative compromise that fairly leads to
progress for the nation.
He was a vigorous supporter of the Peace Corps, a strong
overseer of its performance, and a brilliant advocate for all
the Peace Corps Volunteers. He was a champion for health
coverage for returning Volunteers, and one of the first to
understand that good health coverage had to include mental
health services as well.
In many ways, his first love was the Peace Corps, and I
know that President Kennedy would have been very proud of
him. Even before he came to the Senate, he had his first
contact with the Corps, as a consultant to Sargent Shriver.
As Alan often said, he became involved because he was so
inspired by my brother's vision of a world where Americans of
all ages could work side-by-side with peoples throughout the
world to put an end to poverty.
Because of Alan, the Peace Corps today is thriving as never
before--free of the partisan tensions that divide us on other
issues--spreading international understanding of Alan's and
America's best ideals--educating new generations of young
Americans about our common heritage as travelers on spaceship
earth--teaching us about the beauty, the richness, and the
diversity of other peoples, other languages, other cultures
and about the enduring importance of the greatest pursuit of
all--the pursuit of peace.
Near the end of John Bunyan's ``Pilgrim's Progress,'' there
is a passage that tells of the death of Valiant:
``Then, he said, I am going to my Father's. And though with
great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not regret me
of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am. My
sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage,
and my courage and skill to him that can get it. My marks and
scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me, that I have
fought his battle who now will be my rewarder.
``When the day that he must go hence was come, many
accompanied him to the riverside, into which as he went, he
said, `Death, where is thy sting?' and as he went down
deeper, he said, `Grave, where is thy victory?' So he passed
over, and all the trumpets sounded for him on the other
side.''
We loved you, Alan. We miss you. And we always will.
(Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Thank you, Senator.
Our next speaker was elected to the Senate seat that Alan
occupied when he retired in 1993. She and Senator Cranston
collaborated on many matters while she served in the House of
Representatives, and she authored with Senator Feinstein a
lovely resolution of tribute to Senator Cranston that was
adopted by the Senate on January 22. On behalf of Alan's
family and his extended family and all his friends, we
express our gratitude for this most gracious action.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California. (Applause.)
Senator Barbara Boxer. Thank you. To Alan's family,
beautiful family, and to my dear colleagues who are here, it
certainly has been my honor for the past eight years to serve
in the seat that was held by Alan Cranston for 24 years.
Alan was a deeply caring human being and he cared even for
those whose distant cries were not always heard in
Washington.
From civil rights to arms control, from cleaning up the
environment to improving the lives of our nation's veterans--
Alan's work knew no geographic boundaries. But, sometimes
Alan's legacy on women's rights gets overlooked and that is
what I'm going to speak about today.
From his earliest days in the Senate, Alan made improving
the lives of women a priority. In 1969, he supported the
Equal Rights Amendment. Remember the ERA. It failed. But, in
1972 he became a proud cosponsor again of the ERA, and it
passed. But he didn't stop there--he wrote letters and he got
on the phone to California legislators considering the
measure, urging their support, and his work paid off and
California ratified it that same year. Unfortunately, not all
the states followed suit. But Alan did not stop his advocacy.
He continued over the next decade to push for the Amendment's
ratification and when time ran out, he cosponsored another
ERA in 1983 and another one in 1985, even before he knew he
was going to have a granddaughter. Alan would not give up.
He worked to eliminate gender discrimination in the
workplace. He was the principal author of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act Amendments of 1972, which extended
protections against gender discrimination to federal
employees in the workplace. And he was the very first member
of Congress to introduce legislation aimed at eliminating
wage discrimination in the federal workplace.
Alan understood the challenges faced by working mothers. He
worked to provide child care for this nation's working
families, introducing some of the first ever legislation to
provide care both before and after school. He knew that many
kids were without adult supervision, and I was so proud when
under the Clinton Administration, we saw after-school funding
increase from $1 million in 1997 to $845 million in 2001.
Alan, you laid the ground work for that.
He also worked tirelessly to protect a woman's right to
choose, authoring the Freedom of Choice Act to codify Roe v.
Wade. I proudly carry that bill now. He pushed for increased
access to family planning services for low-income women and
teenagers, and fought to provide medical care to low-income
pregnant women, who otherwise would have been left without it
and would not have had healthy babies.
And he didn't stop there. He sought to level the financial
playing field for women, pushing for laws prohibiting
discrimination against women trying to obtain credit. And we
forget today when we open our mailboxes and we keep getting
all these applications for credit cards, there was a time
when a woman could not get any credit. We thank you, Alan,
although we have to restrain ourselves now and then. We
appreciate the work you did.
Alan was responsible for the first appointment of a woman
to the federal court bench in California. I've personally,
and I know Dianne, we've recommended many women; five of
those that I recommended to President Clinton were nominated
and confirmed. Alan laid that ground work too.
[[Page 6048]]
An advocate for equal education for young women, he fought
hard for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and
you know what that is, equal opportunity for our children,
for our girls in athletics.
And the list goes on and I will stop there with it, because
it could go on and on. But I stand before you today, as a
Senator who is carrying on the progressive work of Alan
Cranston. His belief that women are equal has borne fruit.
If you look around today in the Senate, there are 13 women
Senators from both parties. That's just in this building.
Next door--and we have a couple here--there are 61 women in
the House. We are doing better now, but as my friend Barbara
Mikulski often says, it takes the ``Sir Galahads,'' to get us
there, and Alan was definitely a Sir Galahad.
I'm just going to tell you one quick personal story, and
then I'll end. Alan decided to retire, I ran for the seat and
won the seat, and about a year later, he made an appointment
to come to see me. Now, I know this, the family must know
this, but unlike the Whip's office, which someone else must
have decorated, Alan's personal office here in the Hart
building was not the most beautiful place, because this was
not important to Alan. It was dark; it was dark leather and
dark walls and the blinds were drawn, and that was it. Alan
just saw it as a place to work--files all over the floor. So
when I got into the office, I said: ``Let's brighten it up.
Let's bring California.'' And I ordered all of these green
plants, and we opened up all the shades and we painted the
walls peach and we got peach and green fabrics, and I mean,
it was different. So I thought, you know, Alan was coming to
see me about arms control, but I was excited that he was
going to see what had happened to his office. And he came in
and he sat down, and he sat there and his first thing is,
``You've got to be more aggressive on arms control.'' Now
that's the first time anyone ever told me to be more
aggressive on anything. (Laughter.) But he started to lecture
me and, you know, time went on, it was an hour, he still
hadn't said a thing about the room. So, finally, I got up my
courage, and I said, ``So Alan, what do you think of the
office?'' And he looked around, and he looked around, and he
said, ``You moved my desk.'' (Laughter.) That was it.
Alan said about his role as Senator, and I quote him, when
he retired: ``It has been a privilege I have cherished and
for which I can never adequately thank the people of
California.'' Let me take this moment on behalf of the people
of California to say to Alan Cranston thank you and your work
lives on. (Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Thank you very much, Senator
Boxer, and thank you for being with us so long. I couldn't
help but note when you talked about women and forging the way
for women, that the U.S. Army Strings that played at the
beginning of our ceremony today was composed of four women
from the U.S. Army. And no men.
I want also to acknowledge the presence here of Senator
Daniel Akaka, of the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle,
and of Senator Hollings of South Carolina. We appreciate
their presence with us very much.
Known to all veterans' advocates as ``Mr. Chairman'', our
next speaker was the counterpart in the House to Senator
Cranston and Senator Simpson as the Chairman of the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs in the other body, as it is
affectionately called. He and Alan had to resolve many sticky
and tricky issues over the 14 years that he led the House
Committee, and they were always able to do so with
congeniality and mutual respect.
He has been a great friend to me personally, as has been
his Committee staff. I now introduce Former Representative
Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, ``Mr. Chairman''.
(Applause.)
Representative G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery. Thanks very much,
Jon.
To the family of Senator Cranston, my colleagues on this
panel, cabinet members, other distinguished guests, ladies
and gentlemen.
I'd like to thank you, Judge Steinberg and others for
letting me participate in the remarks of this Memorial
Tribute to Senator Alan Cranston.
Alan and I became friends because he was Chairman of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and I was Chairman of the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and we both enjoyed
working for veterans and their families. Alan was a veteran
of World War II and had really a good feel for veterans
issues.
You know, at first, I was a little uncomfortable working
with the great Senator from California. I am kinda the hand-
shaking, pat-on-the-back congressman whereas Alan was in
great physical shape, and he would look down on me and say
``I am sure we can work together'' and we did.
He had a couple of veterans functions out in California and
asked me to come out.
Going from one veterans meeting to another in different
towns in California, we stopped at this restaurant, and he
said they made the best vegetable soup in California. People
recognized him when he walked in, but Alan wanted the soup
and didn't work the crowd, so to speak.
I said to Steinberg, ``explain to me'', and he did, in
California you had millions of people and you just don't work
the crowds. (Laughter.) So, I found out about that.
Alan did many good things for veterans, and I will mention
a few.
He was the architect of the Veterans Readjustment
Counseling Act that Max Cleland mentioned. There are 206
centers to help Vietnam veterans to readjust and Alan did
pass this legislation in 1979.
He had a strong interest in veterans health care and he
passed legislation that gave thousands of veterans more
access to health care. He pushed for more outpatient clinics,
and more veterans use outpatient clinic facilities now and
the VA, I'm happy to say, has been able to cut back on the
number of hospital beds in our 172 hospitals, because of Alan
Cranston and our outpatient clinics.
He was part of our team that established the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims and worked very hard for the
upgrade of the VA to a Cabinet department.
Some member of Congress, and what a mistake he made,
introduced legislation to tax veterans disability
compensation. Senator Cranston went berserk, he killed this
tax legislation before it even saw the light of day, and he
was right.
Alan was very helpful in establishing educational benefits
for veterans who completed their military obligation, and, he
saw to it that the educational benefits go to the actives as
well as the National Guard and Reserve.
As big as California is and the many government programs
that the state has, I believe he really enjoyed working for
veterans and their families more than other issues in
government.
He was a friend of the veteran and veterans organizations
knew they could count on Alan, and he came through for them.
We all miss him and know even in Heaven Alan has an
exercise program going. (Laughter and applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to note Senator Jeffords who has just joined us. We
appreciate your being here.
Next, we will hear from a former colleague of Alan's who
knew him long before he became a United States Senator or
held any public office. He very graciously called last
Thursday to offer to say a few words in tribute to Alan. I
now introduce former Representative and Independent
Presidential candidate, John B. Anderson of Illinois.
(Applause.)
Representative John B. Anderson. Thank you very much, Judge
Steinberg, and my distinguished former colleagues in both the
House and the Senate, distinguished members of the cabinet,
and Alan's family. I count it an honor indeed to be included
in the group that is privileged this afternoon to say just a
few words about the career of this very remarkable man. You
have already heard a great deal about his commitment to the
cause of civil rights, women's rights, conservation, the
environment, veterans' affairs. I will not attempt to repeat
the comments or the praise that could continue to be heaped
upon him for the efforts that he exerted in all of those
fields. But, as a member of the ``other body'' for 12 of the
24 years that Alan Cranston served in the Senate, I was well
aware of the distinguished record that he had compiled in
that body. And I would simply again state what has already
been remarked that earlier than most he saw the folly of our
entanglement in Southeast Asia, and I remember his very clear
and clairvoyant voice calling for an end to the struggle
there. He called for more than that, for an end to the arms
race.
And it's really to that vision that he had in this
particular realm of international affairs that I wanted to
direct my very brief remarks this afternoon. Because, as a
very young man he was gifted with a passion for achieving
peace in our time that was shaped as someone said about a
former President, I forget who it was, he had a vision that
enabled him to peer around a corner of history, to see what
lay beyond. In short, he was, indeed, a globalist long before
globalization had become a term used in common parlance.
And it was just two years after the founding of the United
World Federalists in Asheville, North Carolina, that young
Alan Cranston at the age of 35 became the President of that
organization and served until 1951. One of his mentors was
the late, distinguished Grenville Clark, who, along with
Lewis B. Sonn, wrote that very magisterial work on world
peace through world law. And that indeed was the vision that
Alan Cranston had. He had a vision of a democratic world
federation that would emerge from what was then, when he was
president of the United World Federalists, still a very
nascent United Nations. He maintained that interest and
served on the Board of Advisors of the World Federalists
Association until his recent death.
Upon his retirement from the Senate in 1994, and this is
the point, I think, that I wanted the opportunity to
emphasize here this afternoon, he did not regard his career
as ended. I read the account of the marvelous memorial
service conducted in San Francisco just three weeks ago, in
Grace Cathedral, where his son was quoted as saying that he
had said that ``when the end comes, I
[[Page 6049]]
want to be able somehow to still struggle across the finish
line with my head up.'' And he added to that that when the
end came, he was still sprinting; he was not merely
struggling, he was sprinting in pursuit of the goals that he
sought. And he became a leading and a very strong voice in
civil society in the area that, at the end of his life, I am
convinced, lay closest to his heart. It was the interest in
disarmament, an end to the threat of nuclear war and the
achievement of world peace through world law. And he believed
that that could be achieved only through the application and
the use of the same federalist principles that had inspired
the Framers of our Constitution to write a Constitution that
would bring about peace and domestic tranquillity among the
then 13 independent sovereignties who had found that under
the Articles of Confederation their bonds of unity had become
frayed. And it was Alan's belief, building on that historical
fact, that only with a restructured and an empowered United
Nations, one capable of maintaining peace with justice, that
we would recognize the goal that he sought, of world peace
through world law.
It's been mentioned, I think, already, that he served as
President of the Global Security Institute, a non-profit
organization dedicated to disarmament and world peace. He saw
security not simply as an issue confined within the narrow
boundaries of nationalism but as an issue that required the
forging of new bonds of global cooperation.
And one of the last and most vivid memories that I
personally have of Alan Cranston was less than three years
ago, when the Hague Appeal for Peace drew thousands of peace
activists from around the world to the Hague, to celebrate,
to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of the first
Hague peace conference. Alan was there as one of the leading
spokespersons from the United States. And again, one of the
memorable experiences of that international meeting was to
attend one of its sessions and to hear him describe how he
was even then busy working on a book, a book on sovereignty,
a book that would seek to explain that, in this new
millennium, the old Westphalian theory of state sovereignty
was simply not sufficient unto the needs of our present age,
and we had to reconceptualize that term in a way that would
allow the formation of democratic global institutions that
would carry out the goals of disarmament and build a world in
which peace could be achieved through reliance on the rule of
law.
Those are the memories that I will certainly carry with me,
as inspiration for the remainder of my life, and I thank you,
Alan Cranston, for the things that you did, both in the
Senate, and then in those very important years when you
carried forth your ideas and lived for your ideals as a
strong member of American civil society. (Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. I think that gave us all an
important glimpse of the formation of Alan Cranston's
philosophy and thinking and I know that there are a number of
people from those early days in the United World Federalists
who are here today, including Neil Potter and Ted Waller, who
worked with Alan so many years ago at the founding of that
organization.
Our next speaker has served for 26 years in the House of
Representatives. He worked very closely with Alan on many
initiatives of significance to their California constituents
and particularly to the children of their state and the
children of the entire country. We are very grateful that he
has taken time to be with us throughout this entire ceremony
this afternoon.
Representative George Miller of California. (Applause.)
Representative George Miller. Well thank you, and to all of
you, to family and friends, and colleagues. I am very, very
pleased to be able to participate in this memorial to an
extraordinary life, to clearly one of the leading California
statesmen of the 20th century.
My familiarity with Alan Cranston goes back long before my
politics, when as a young boy, I sat in the living room of
our home and listened to Alan Cranston and my father and many
other California politicians plot campaigns and create and
organize the California Democratic Council, which changed the
politics of California, changed the Democratic Party in
California, launched their careers, and later the careers of
so many other progressive politicians in the State of
California. It was a profound organization, in terms of its
influence in California. In the post-war, in the conservative
years, it was an organization, that led by Alan, would speak
out on nuclear arms control, on civil rights, on the rights
of labor--these issues that became the cornerstone for so
many of us who later sought to run for political life in the
State of California.
I think it's rather fitting that we remember Alan at this
time. Because we can remember when a conservative
administration came to this town twenty years ago and sought
to launch an attack on programs for the poor, on women and
the ill, on foster care and adoption, on child health, on
handicapped education, and so many other programs that were
targeted for elimination. Alan and his colleagues not only
led that fight, but participated in it, stood their ground,
and fought against those efforts, and today, when we see a
new administration arriving in town, we're no longer talking
about the elimination of these programs, we're talking about
making them work better. We recognize the beneficiaries of
these programs, and the benefits to our society. We now see
that, in fact, because of the fight that was made a long time
ago, we now have a legacy of understanding the role and the
importance that government plays in so many American's lives,
and the necessity of it. We've heard it with respect to
veterans, we've heard it with respect to the environment, to
women, and to so many others in American society.
Many of us would think that if you look at the last quarter
of the 20th century in American politics, you would think of
extreme ideological behavior, you'd think of political chaos,
and you would suggest that not a lot got done. But, as
already had been mentioned here, if you look at the legacy
and the workload and the work product of Alan Cranston, you
would recognize that, in fact, it was a golden age of
legislation for people like Alan Cranston. He was able to put
his signature and his work into so many efforts that became
the law of the land. I recall two of those, working with him
as a colleague in the House. One was in the 70s; in the late
70s, after five years of working together, of holding
hearings, site visits, talking with families and children, we
put together legislation to deal with the problems of foster
care, to children who were trapped in a system from which
they could not escape, families who could not get their
children back from that system, and the impact that it had on
these children. That law was later signed by President
Carter, and it was Alan's tenacity that allowed us to get it
through.
The other one of course, that's been mentioned here, is the
California Desert. Alan started pioneering that effort so
many years ago, so many years before we actually considered
it on the floor of the House or the Senate. Where he walked
over those areas, he hiked over them, he spent time with the
constituents who were interested in them, with the
organizations that were trying to preserve them. Kim has
spent much time in that area. And, after Alan left the
Senate, I managed the bill on the floor of the House. The
opponents were numerous; we used to have to have security and
armed guards to go into the hearings on the California Desert
Bill. They held the controversial ones in Beverly Hills, so
that people would have trouble getting there, it was a grand
ploy. And it worked. But, in any case, the opposition in the
House was incredible. We spent many, many, many, many days
debating this legislation, on again, off again, part of the
day, into the night. They filed numerous amendments, all of
which had unlimited debate time. They had a coterie of people
who would speak on every amendment for the maximum time
allowed, so that they could delay this bill and not see it
enacted. I called Alan and I said, ``Alan, we've got to
accept some amendments to speed this along. The members of
the House are starting to call me Moses, they've said they've
been in the desert for so long on this legislation.'' I said,
``Some of these amendments, what can we accept to narrow this
down'', and he said, ``None''. And I said, ``Alan, this is
the House, it will never stop'', and he said, ``None''. He
said ``We can't accept them''. I talked to him about a couple
of amendments to move the boundaries, he said, ``No, I've
been there; I've been there and if you go to the bottom of
that canyon, you're going to find a little spring down
there--most people don't know it exists. You can't put that
outside the park, that's going to have to be in.'' Well, it's
turned out he was right. Dianne managed the bill on the
Senate floor, and Bill Clinton signed it into law, and now
it's one of our leading attractions in the nation and
certainly in the State of California. Those who opposed it
are now seeking authorizations and appropriations for
visitors centers and various support systems for the park.
(Laughter.) The Chambers of Commerce now think that this is a
cash register and they'd like to have it expanded, they'd
like to have the boundaries expanded, they'd like to have the
protections upgraded, so that more visitors would come and
bless their economy. It was Alan Cranston's foresight that
brought that about.
You know, the political mentor to so many of us, Phil
Burton, used to say to us that when you came to the House or
you came to the Senate, that it was a privilege and it was an
honor, and you had to pay the rent, you had to pay the rent
all the time to stay there. And I think that Alan fully
understood that while this clearly was the world's most
exclusive club, he still had to pay the rent, and he did over
and over and over again, on behalf of so many Americans, on
behalf of our environment, on behalf of world peace, on
behalf of human rights. He paid the rent constantly to earn
his right to stay here and to work and to work and to work on
behalf of all of us. And I think we should thank him, for all
of the fights that he made, and all of the ground that he
stood, on behalf of America, and all of its people. Thank you
very much, Alan. (Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Thank you, Representative Miller.
Next, we will hear from a Senator who served on two
Committees with Alan--Banking and Foreign Relations--where
they
[[Page 6050]]
shared many common interests. Senator Kerry was a highly
decorated veteran of Vietnam and a co-founder of the Vietnam
Veterans of America, an organization which was to play an
important role in the enactment of much legislation that he
and Senator Cranston championed, particularly the Veterans'
Judicial Review Act that created the Court on which I am
honored to serve along with another former Member of Congress
who is also with us today, Chief Judge Ken Kramer.
Senator Kerry succeeded to the Democratic leadership of the
Banking Committee's Housing Subcommittee, which Senator
Cranston had chaired from 1987 to 1993. Also, I know that
Senator Kerry shares the passion that Senator Cranston lived
and breathed for ending the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. (Applause.)
Senator John Kerry. Thank you, Jonathan. Kim, Colette,
Evan, and R.E., it's a very special privilege to join with
all of you today in remembering the remarkable life and
achievements of our friend, Alan Cranston.
As we've heard today, and as we all know, Alan was a
sprinter, a record-holding sprinter, who, in his sixties, was
only two seconds slower than he was in his twenties when he
set the records. And I think it's safe to say that those who
knew him well would agree that he really sprinted through
life; he sprinted through the United States Senate, always
with a yellow pad in his hand and a felt-tip pen, covered
with ink, with more things on that pad to do in one day than
most of us would venture to accomplish in a week or a month,
and he got them done. And always with this incredible,
mischievous twinkle in his eye. He had fun advocating and
challenging the system.
One of the most enduring images of Alan would be at the
Iowa caucuses in 1984 at the Holiday Inn in Keokuk, Iowa,
where he was seen sprinting barefooted down 40-meter
hallways, then he'd walk back, and he'd repeat the exercise
for about 40 minutes. And I think that understanding that, we
can understand why it was no coincidence that Alan's favorite
hotel was the Chicago O'Hare Hilton, where they had 250-meter
hallways. (Laughter.)
Three weeks ago in California, we had a tender goodbye to
our friend, this sprinter, at a memorial service--calling to
mind the many ways in which he enriched our lives and this
country.
There in the Grace Cathedral, we heard Colette Cranston say
that in death Alan Cranston ``has become my Jiminy Cricket--
that little voice in [her] conscience that says, `Colette,
think before you leap.''' It would not be an exaggeration to
say that that warning was a characteristic of Alan--think
before you leap, and, most of all, he wanted us to think, he
wanted us to look, and, by God, he wanted us to leap. He
implored us to put a public face on policy. He wanted us to
think not in terms of statistics and numbers and programs,
but in terms of people; and the people he spoke of most
often, as all of my colleagues who served with him will
remember, were senior citizens, children, those without
decent housing, immigrants, those in need of a helping hand
regardless of race or religion. He was a moral voice, a voice
of conscience, someone who understood that even as he
remained vigilant in defending the needs and wishes of his
home state of California, he was also a global citizen and he
knew and felt the responsibilities of this institution,
towards the rest of the world.
Through four terms as a United States Senator, he also
remained a man of enormous humility--on his answering machine
he was simply ``Alan''--as he was to so many who worked with
him and knew him. And this personal sense of place and of
restraint made it easy to underestimate the contributions
that he made to the Senate, and to our country. Certainly he
never paused long enough to personally remind us of the
impact of his service, of the history that he was a part of
and the lives that he touched.
I first met Alan in 1971 when I had returned from Vietnam
and many of our veterans were part of an effort to end what
we thought was a failed policy in that country. In Alan
Cranston we found one of the few Senators willing not just to
join in public opposition to the war in Vietnam, but to
become a voice of healing for veterans of the war--a
statesman whose leadership enabled others, over time, to
separate their feelings about the war from their feelings for
the veterans of the war. At a time when too many wanted
literally to disown this country's own veterans, Alan
Cranston offered them a warm embrace. He was eager to do
something all too rare in Washington: To listen--and he
listened to veterans who had much to say, much of it ignored
for too long. He honored their pride and their pain with his
sensitivity and his understanding.
That's when I first came to see the great energy and the
commitment that he brought to issues affecting veterans,
especially those of the Vietnam era. He was deeply involved
on veterans' health care issues, among the first to fight for
the recognition of post-Vietnam stress syndrome, a leader in
insisting, together with Sonny Montgomery, on the extension
of coverage under the VA, under the GI Bill. And when the
Agent Orange issue came to the fore, Alan insisted on getting
answers from a government that was unresponsive. He made sure
that veterans and their families got the care that they
needed. Under his leadership, together with his partner in
the House, they increased GI Bill benefits for Vietnam
veterans--and I tell you that that was a time when veterans
too often had to fight for what was their simple due, whether
it was a memorial here in Washington, or simply to have the
government recognize that it was a war, and not simply a
conflict. Alan's leadership made all the difference. It's a
sad truth in our history that a weary nation indeed seemed
eager to turn its back on the entire war by also turning its
back on so many veterans. It should forever be a source of
pride to the Cranston family that Alan was chief among those
who insisted that America honor that service and keep faith
with sons who left pieces of themselves and years of their
lives on the battlefield in Vietnam.
This was a man who fought with extraordinary passion for
everything. And he fought at the most difficult of times. Not
just for veterans, but as we've heard from others today, he
fought against all that war represents--remembering that war,
and the killing that follows it, is the ultimate failure of
diplomacy.
Alan Cranston was above all else a man of peace. And he was
a man of peace not as a matter of public policy, but as a
matter of personal passion. Remember: This was a man who, in
1934, found himself in the same room as Adolf Hitler. Five
years later, he wrote a critical English translation of Adolf
Hitler's ``Mein Kampf'' in an effort to reveal the German
leader's true plans. And he wore Hitler's ensuing lawsuit as
a badge of honor, proud that he had stood up to try and warn
the English-speaking world about the evils of Nazism.
Throughout the rest of his service he used public office to
force Americans to listen to other prescient warnings--about
nuclear war, about the arms race, about hopes for peace that
he refused to give up even as others chose to beat the drums
of war.
Senator Cranston came to his famous commitment, as we
learned from the film, after meeting with Albert Einstein in
1946. And he left that meeting convinced that he had found
his mission and he would indeed spend the balance of his life
arguing that conviction before the world.
As a member of the Senate leadership and a senior voice on
the Democratic side of the Foreign Relations Committee, he
worked tirelessly to reduce the nuclear threat. Obviously,
there were many of those efforts, but one of the most
unpublicized was his effort through the 1970s and 80's, when
he convened a unique group known as the ``SALT Study Group''.
A senators-only gathering monthly in his office, off the
record, face-to-face to define the confines of the debate. He
knew the impact that quiet diplomacy could have on the
issues, but on this issue above all that he cared about the
most.
He loved the Peace Corps, and he fought for it. He fought
to attach human rights conditions on aid to El Salvador. He
was a leading national advocate for the mutual verifiable
freeze. He was always an idealist whose increase in political
power, gratefully, was always met by progress for the issues
that he cared about so deeply. It was not just the work of a
career, but the work of a lifetime--and after he left the
Senate, we all know the remarkable commitment that he
continued with Mikhail Gorbachev and ultimately in his
founding of the Global Security Institute.
He did that because he sensed that the end of the Cold War,
with all of the opportunity that it afforded, which he
understood, still left us a world that was more dangerous,
and he was haunted by the threat of nuclear terrorism. We
missed his voice in the debate on the test ban treaty, and we
miss him even more today.
When he left the Senate, Alan reflected on his service and
he said of his own legacy, simply: ``Most of all, I have
dedicated myself to the cause of peace.''
That dedication was real, it was lasting, and the legacy of
peace for a good and peaceful man who gave living embodiment
to Culbertson's simple, stubborn faith that ``God and the
politicians willing, the United States can declare peace upon
the world, and win it.'' That belief was Alan Cranston--and
it's a belief still worth fighting for. (Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Our concluding speaker from this
body is also one of its newest members. She traveled to
California three weeks ago, as did Senator Kerry, as he told
us, to attend the ceremony attended by over a thousand
persons at the Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. For reasons
that I know she will share with us, she will be--along with
Max Cleland--a living legacy of Alan Cranston in the United
States Senate.
Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington. (Applause.)
Senator Maria Cantwell. Thank you. To Kim and Colette and
Evan and R.E., thank you for allowing me to share this
occasion to remember Alan and to have been there a few weeks
ago and to see so many of the friends and faces that Alan
touched.
[[Page 6051]]
People today have talked about Alan's legislative career--
the many pieces of legislation that will live with us for a
long time. But I'd like to share with you today maybe a
different Alan Cranston that I knew as I worked on his
Presidential campaign in 1983 and 1984. Some people might
think running for President is a glorious task, but it is a
very difficult one that I think Alan knew would help aid the
cause and message that he wanted to fight for. In fact, I'm
not from Washington state originally; it was Alan Cranston
that dropped me off there in 1983. In fact, the first time I
ever visited, I was a part of his presidential campaign
staff, in which he left me at SEA-TAC Airport in Seattle and
went on about his business to campaign. But people who knew
Alan knew that he jumped into that race to deliver a message
for the right reason. I was fortunate enough to have read
R.E.'s book about Alan, and knew all the things that Alan had
fought through in his life, some of the things that have been
mentioned today. About being sued by Adolf Hitler for
translating in next to no time a version of ``Mein Kampf''.
Being a pre-World War II journalist and being smart enough to
understand what was going to be advocated and running back to
the United States and having that published. And all of the
other wonderful things that Alan did in helping women, and on
the environment; one thing I haven't heard mentioned today is
his work with Native Americans, which is something that I
recognize.
But what was amazing about Alan from a personal
perspective, and you definitely get to know someone from a
personal perspective when you travel with him on a
presidential campaign, is that Alan was very self
disciplined. John Kerry talked about his running, and that
was something that was very important to Alan on a daily
basis. And, yes, I can attest to the fact that he did sprint
in the hotel corridors when you didn't schedule time for him
to run outside. But, when Alan, challenged with the fact that
maybe some of the other hotel guests found it shocking to
find somebody so tall and long running down the halls at 7:30
in the morning, the Senator replied, ``well maybe I should
start at 6:30 instead.'' (Laughter.)
But Alan never complained about that task. And for me, in
Washington state, there were lots of World Federalists, a lot
of people part of the nuclear freeze movement, a lot of
people very appreciative of his efforts on the environment.
But Alan was also a very self-deprecating person when it came
to making a moment light. And I'll never forget the time in
Vancouver, Washington, where hundreds of people had showed up
at eight-thirty on a Sunday morning, I think it was the
Fourth of July, to hear his message about the nuclear freeze.
And when he mistakenly called the host of the event, whose
name was ``June'', ``Jane'', and he heard a gasp from the
audience, he quickly looked down at his program and saw that
he had mistakenly called her the wrong name, and all of a
sudden started pounding on his chest, saying, ``Me Tarzan!
You Jane!'' (Laughter.) Which put everybody at ease, and Alan
went on to give his very important remarks to a community
that I don't think has seen since the likes of Alan Cranston.
And yet, when you run a Presidential campaign, you also are
a spokesperson for your issues. But I never saw Alan take
advantage of that situation, where he was trying to make more
than the situation called for. In fact, he was very reserved
in his comments. I remember being with him on August 31, in
1983, when the Korean Airline flight 007 was shot down. We
happened to be in Anchorage, Alaska, at that time, and many
of you probably know the various controversies that arose out
of that; 269 people were killed. And I remember waking up
that morning to a press event where probably 200 different
people were there, including the national press, all wanting
Alan to make a statement right away; because he was a
Presidential candidate, because his remarks would be all over
the news. And yet Alan had the self discipline not just to
say something immediately that morning, but to say, in a
calming way, ``let's find out the facts, first.'' And when I
think about that as a human being, particularly in my new
post and job, in which the world moves so fast and in which
people go about promoting their idea and concepts, the very
human side of Alan Cranston remains with me, and I hope it
does with each of you.
I talked to him in October of this year, in which I was out
campaigning in Bellingham, Washington, one of the last places
I had to campaign with him, and I said to him, ``Senator, you
dropped me off here almost seventeen years ago, and you never
picked me up.'' And Alan reminded me that is was time to work
together. So I guess I say to Kim, and Colette, and R.E., and
to those of you who are going to carry on the Cranston
legacy, that he left in each one of us a piece of that flame
that he carried for so long. You saw it on the film. It
started when Albert Einstein said to him, ``nuclear arms
could wipe out a whole race of people.'' I think Alan started
saying that from that moment on, and reminded people about it
until his last days. And so I hope that each and every one of
you, as I will, carries part of that torch and flame that
Alan had of self-discipline, knowing that he was not the
message, but the messenger, in helping this fight. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. And now we'll hear from Alan
Cranston's son Kim, who I know is committed to seeing that
Alan's lifelong commitment to securing world peace is carried
on as his most important bequest to his granddaughter Evan
and all the children of our planet.
Kim. (Applause.)
Kim Cranston. Thank you, all. Those of you who were
familiar with the legal pads that Alan carried around and the
black pens will be happy to know that Evan is over here busy
making a ``to do'' list. (Laughter.) I'm not sure what it all
includes.
Jonathan, thank you very much for helping to organize this,
and everybody else who was involved in this, the Senate
sponsors, and each of the other speakers; I deeply appreciate
your kind and touching words about Alan and his work here.
It's good to see all of you, so many old friends. It's sad
under the circumstances that we come together, but it's
wonderful to see you all again. I know how much Alan
cherished your friendship and collaboration over the years.
I was really truly blessed, I feel, to have, through the
genetic lottery, ended up as Alan's son, and had the
opportunity to get to know him as my father, as my dearest
and oldest friend, and as a wonderful collaborator, mentor,
teacher, and leader. And I know his loss as a leader is a
loss we all share.
I've been reflecting over the last month on many of the
things that I've learned from Alan and our work together,
living with him, and a few things stand out that I wanted to
share today. One thing that stood out for me was the
remarkable style of leadership he had. Inside the program is
the poem that he carried, the Lao-Tzu quote, for most of his
life, that really informed the style of leadership that he
practiced. It concludes with:
But of a good leader,
When his work is done,
His aim fulfilled,
They will all say,
``We did this ourselves.''
And so today, we're here, recognizing what we accomplished
together with Alan. And so it's an opportunity not only to
mourn his loss, but to celebrate what we accomplished
together, and I think, beyond that, to recommit, and commit
to the ongoing causes that we engaged in with him.
Another lesson that has stood out in the last month for me
was something that I really remember when I first began
hearing it from him. I was told the central purpose of life
was to make the world a better place, or, as one of Alan's
heros, Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``life's most
persistent and urgent question is `what are you doing to
serve others?' '' And it was certainly in that spirit that
Alan conducted his life and committed most of his public
life.
And, finally, one other thing that stands out very strongly
for me, both in terms of the work that he did here in
Washington, and to the work that he continued to do after he
left Washington, was his recognition of the extraordinary
moment in history in which we all live. In that regard, I
just note that a friend commented after Alan had left the
Senate, that they had seen him, and they said, ``Kim, you
know, he doesn't seem to be slowing down, he seems to be
speeding up.'' And I think that was true, because he said to
me that he'd felt since he left the Senate that he could
really focus in on the things that he was most concerned
about, to devote 100% of his energy to those causes that were
of greatest concern to him. And I think the cornerstone of
that was an understanding that we have entered a new age
during our lifetime, when we're facing global challenges that
can be addressed only at the global level, and that we need
to come up with effective new approaches for dealing with
those challenges.
After he left the Senate, the cause did continue, most
recently in the form of the Global Security Institute, which
is continuing, and it has a great board, and a wonderful
director, Jonathan Granoff, our CEO, who is here today. And I
would really urge those of you who are here today who shared
in those causes with Alan to look forward to opportunities to
collaborate with us, because the work goes on, and Alan was
just the messenger.
In closing, I'd just like to say something I know Alan
closed most of his speeches with, which was, ``I thank you
for all you are doing, and urge you onward.'' Thank you.
(Applause.)
Judge Jonathan Steinberg. Thank you, Kim. I know your
father would be proud of your personal actions to pick up the
torch and deeply moved by your words.
I want to close with some expressions of thanks to many
people. Again, I want to note how grateful all of us are to
the sponsoring Senators and to all who spoke so eloquently
and movingly about the man who will live forever in my heart
as ``Alan,'' as the most important influence on the lives of
so many of us in this room today.
The presence here throughout this entire ceremony of three
Cabinet officials in this new Administration should remind us
all of Alan's abiding belief that it was possible to form an
alliance with every Senator on one issue or another, and of
his commitment to
[[Page 6052]]
do just that. Common ground and common sense was much more
important to him than party affiliation or political
philosophy. We thank the three Secretaries who joined us
today and helped remind us of how important those sentiments
are for the welfare of our country.
There are an enormous number of people who volunteered
their time and did just incredible work to make this tribute
as successful and meaningful as we hope that it has been. If
I leave anyone out, I apologize--as I do, and as I did
before, if I left out any former officeholder, who I should
have recognized earlier. So, I offer special thanks, on
behalf of the family and myself, alphabetically, to Zack
Allen, Bill Brew, Fran Butler, Monique Ceruti, Kelly Cordes,
Chad Griffin, Bill Johnstone, Susanne Martinez, Katie
O'Neill, Dan Perry, Valerie Rheinstein, Alexandra Sardegna,
Ed Scott, Martha Stanley, Loraine Tong, Joel Wood, and one
most special person, Elinor Tucker, without whose highly
efficient logistical support we would never have made it to
this point. I thank Senator Rockefeller for allowing her to
put in so much time and effort and to do so in such an
effective way. Finally, an even more personal thanks to my
wife, Shellie, for helping to keep me on an relatively even
keel over the past month as this event was pulled together.
And, finally, thanks to all of you who joined us in tribute
today to Senator Alan McGregor Cranston, a great American who
lived his life by the philosophy of a Chinese poet Lao-Tzu,
whose words on leadership, printed in today's program, Alan
carried with him every day.
That concludes this Tribute. Please remember to sign the
guest book, and thanks again for coming. And we'll go out to
the theme song from Alan's Presidential campaign, ``Chariots
of Fire''. (Applause.)
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
CONGRATULATING WE THE PEOPLE PARTICIPANTS FROM WYOMING
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on April 21-23, 2001 more than 1,200
students from across the United States met in Washington, D.C. to
compete in the national finals of the ``We the People'', The Citizen
and the Constitution program. I am proud to report that the class from
Cheyenne Central High School from Cheyenne represented the State of
Wyoming in this national event. The fine students in this class
include: Joe Bergene; Skye Bougsty-Marshall; Cory Bulkley; Michelle
Cassidy; Ryan Day; Sara De Groot; Chris Heald; Nat Linter; Steve
Lucero; Geoff Luke; Caroline Morris; Ben Silver; and Annaliese
Wiederspahn. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Don Morris,
who deserves much of the credit for the class' success.
These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals
and through their experience gained a deep knowledge and understanding
of the fundamental principles of our constitutional democracy.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to support the ``We the
People'' program through my work on the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee and the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. I am particularly proud to note that the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act will allow schools,
which choose to do so, to use federal funds to incorporate the We the
People program into their study of civics and American government.
I once again want to congratulate Don Morris and these students from
Cheyenne Central High School.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STEPHEN J. RAPP
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to
honor Stephen J. Rapp, United States Attorney for the Northern District
of Iowa.
Steve Rapp has been a trailblazer in my home state of Iowa since he
began his career in public service in his early twenties. Back in 1972,
he won a seat in our House of Representatives, and at the tender age of
twenty-five, he came within a hair's breadth of winning the Third
District Congressional seat. He did eventually join us on Capitol Hill
a few years later when he served as Staff Director and Counsel of the
U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency.
After his stint in Washington, Steve returned to Iowa and served
another four years in our House of Representatives where he
distinguished himself as a leader on anti-crime legislation. Steve was
instrumental in passing our state's rape shield law and our strong
anti-drunk driving regulation. And he wrote the law that forbids
release pending appeal of criminals who are guilty of forcible
felonies.
In 1993, Steve was appointed as a United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Iowa, and under his stewardship, the Northern
District became a national torchbearer in criminal prosecutions. Steve
filed America's first prosecution under Title II of the Brady Law. He
also filed the nation's first prosecution under the federal ``Three
Strikes'' law, and the first prosecution under the Lautenberg amendment
that prohibited convicted domestic violence offenders from owning a
gun.
But Steve wasn't content merely to do a stellar job on the day to day
duties of United States Attorney. He became a member of the Attorney
Generals Advisory Committee, serving on the working Group on Interior
Enforcement Immigration Law and on Subcommittees handling violence
against women, organized crime, victim crime, juvenile justice and
Native American issues. In addition, he served as chair of the Midwest
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and has held forums across
Northern Iowa to educate citizens and help reduce methamphetamine use.
When I think of all the work Steve Rapp has done for our state and
our country, I'm reminded of the words of President John F. Kennedy who
once noted, ``Law is the strongest link between man and freedom.''
Steve Rapp has worked tirelessly to keep the people of Northern Iowa
and America free, free from crime and violence, and free to raise their
families and live their lives in safe, secure communities.
Steve has been honored by groups ranging from the Afro-American
Community Broadcasting to the NAACP to the Black Hawk County Legal
Secretaries Association. And it is my pleasure to add myself to that
list and offer my deepest gratitude for his long and distinguished
record of service.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE 125TH BIRTHDAY OF ST. MARY PARISH OF NEW BALTIMORE,
MICHIGAN
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me today
in congratulating the St. Mary Parish of New Baltimore, MI on their
upcoming one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary. Since 1876, the St.
Mary's has been serving the spiritual needs of it's congregation as
well as the community at large.
The history of St. Mary Parish is too long and rich for me to recount
here in full, but it is important to point out that New Baltimore has
been home to a Catholic community since 1805, when ``horseback
priests'' from Canada and Detroit would come to minister in private
homes. It was in 1876, as America was celebrating its centennial, that
Father Aloysius Lambert was appointed the first resident pastor and the
St. Mary Parish was born. Father Lambert worked to establish a church
and chapel, a grade school and a rectory. Other important events in the
history of the Parish include the mortgage being paid off and burned in
1938, the addition of a war memorial shrine in 1949, and the completion
of a new gymnasium in 1951. This gymnasium would serve as a temporary
church when the 83 year old building burned to the ground in 1958. In
1963, the cornerstone was laid in what was now to be known as St. Mary
Queen of Creation.
The 1960's also saw the creation of a new mission for St. Mary
Parish. A chapter of St. Vincent de Paul was opened to serve the needs
of the poor in New Baltimore and seventh-grader Mary Jane Plague began
a music ministry. This legacy of community stewardship grew with the
addition of Sister Loretta Demick to the St. Mary Parish in 1974.
Sister Demick began what was known as Sister Loretta's Closet, which
helped feed the poor, elderly and infirmed of the Parish. Also in 1974,
the former convent was turned into a home for women who are
developmentally disabled. People with special needs are still being
served in this
[[Page 6053]]
building, and it is known as the Horizons Residential Centers. In the
last decade, the St. Mary Parish has expanded outreach programs to help
the homeless and those with HIV/AIDS.
Over the years, St. Mary Parish has grown from a few families to
thousands of parishioners and along the way has dedicated itself to
bettering the lives of everyone in its community. The community of New
Baltimore and all of Macomb County have benefitted from many good deeds
and continuing works of generosity that the St. Mary Parish has
undertaken. I trust that my Senate colleagues will join me in wishing
St. Mary Parish a happy one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary, and
hoping that the next century and a quarter are as fruitful as the
last.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE STUDENTS FROM CENTURY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I had the privilege to meet
with twelve accomplished students from Century Senior High School in
Bismarck, ND, who are in town to compete in the national finals of the
``We the People. . .'' competition. This competition focuses on the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and these students have worked
hard to reach the national finals.
These students are Adrienne Buckman, Nicole Elkin, Jessica Fritz,
Nathan Grenz, Gwen Hobert, Chris Holzer, Reed Hushka, Whitney
KreingKrairt, Rudie Martinson, Paul Nehring, Grant Neuharth, and Russel
Pearson. They are ably led by their teacher, Jeff Aas, who also
deserves credit for the success of the class.
I am proud of this class and their dedication to this project. The
Constitution is not just a historical document; it is the basis for our
entire system of government. The brilliance of the Constitution lies in
its flexibility which has allowed it to stand the test of time. The
Bill of Rights is a fundamental part of our national culture and has
been the basis of freedom principles that have been adopted in other
countries around the world.
The knowledge that these students have gained by studying the
Constitution will serve them well for years to come. Congratulations to
these outstanding students from my home State.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DENNIS H. BLOME
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments
today to honor Dennis H. Blome for his outstanding work as United
States Marshal for the Northern District of Iowa.
Before he even set foot in the U.S. Marshal's office, Dennis Blome
had already distinguished himself with over two decades of dedicated
law enforcement service. During these years, he took on just about
every position in the field of law enforcement, and he performed them
all with diligence, passion and honor.
Dennis started out as a Deputy in the Linn County Sheriff's Office in
1971. He then took on the positions of Jail Officer, dispatcher and
patrolman before becoming First Deputy for Sheriff Walter H. Grant. And
he later served as Jail Administrator, Sergeant, Lieutenant and head of
Detectives for the Sheriff's Office.
In 1984, Dennis was elected as Sheriff, and he took the lead in
helping build a new jail and provide critically needed training for
jail personnel throughout Iowa. He was also an enthusiastic member of
the legislative Committee of the Iowa State Sheriffs' and Deputies'
Association and of the National Sheriffs' Association.
Dennis' passion for learning and taking on new challenges led him to
continue his education at the FBI National Academy, the National
Institute of Corrections and Mount Mercy College where he got his BA
degree in Criminal Justice and Psychology. He also took advantage of
special training seminars through the National Sheriffs' Conference and
the International Chiefs of Police.
Dennis' extensive job experience and solid education served him well
when he was appointed as United States Marshal for the Northern
District of Iowa back in 1994. He focused his boundless energy on a
number of projects, most notably, that of strengthening security in our
courthouses. Today, thanks to Dennis, our courthouses in Cedar Rapids
and Sioux City have interior and exterior camera systems as well as
recording systems and multiple monitoring systems.
But even more important than what Dennis accomplished is how he
accomplished it. Dennis never considered any job to be ``beneath'' him.
He was always willing to pitch in whether it meant being present in
court, transporting prisoners or doing anything else necessary to keep
the agency in good running order. His humility and commitment to his
work made him a popular leader.
Dennis Blome embodies all of the highest ideals of public service.
He's served our state with honor and loyalty for thirty years, and it
is my pleasure to offer my deepest gratitude for his considerable
contributions.
____________________
HONORING BILL BRADLEY
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we celebrate the long career
of dedicated public service rendered by Mr. Bill Bradley of Ware, MA.
His deep love of policy and politics has inspired me and many others,
and I am fortunate to have Bill's friendship and counsel in my life.
This weekend, Bill's friends and colleagues will gather to look back
on 25 years of service to two United States Senators, a Congressman,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the people of Massachusetts.
Bill retires from a distinguished career of government service, most
recently having held the post of Regional Director for the Department
of Agriculture's Rural Development Program and today I join his
extended political family in this celebration.
The same interest and passion that Bill brought to his USDA service
can be found in earlier chapters of his life. As a freshman in high
school, he pursued an early interest in politics by working as a
congressional page in Washington D.C. in 1962, and his sponsor was a
son of Dorchester who went on to become the great Speaker of the U.S.
House of Representatives, John W. McCormack. Bill was a page through
the next two years, and capped his early Washington experience by
witnessing Lyndon Johnson's inauguration in 1965. After graduating from
the University of California and serving a brief stint with the U.S.
Forest Service in Alaska, Bill got his first job on Capitol Hill as a
Legislative Aide for Congressman Dale Milford of Texas during the
Carter Administration. Soon he moved closer to his Massachusetts up
north to run a mobile office for my predecessor in this chamber, the
late Paul Tsongas. From 1979 to 1983, Bill traveled in this capacity
through the same towns he would later serve through the USDA. Once
established in Western Massachusetts with Senator Tsongas, Bill dug
deeper into the issues closest to the heart of those communities, and
soon his knowledge and understanding of the region and its needs was
exemplary. Even greater was his passion to serve them.
Bill coordinated these cities and towns in my first Senate campaign
in 1984 and later became the Director of Constituent Services for my
whole state-wide operation. Throughout the nine years he spent on my
staff, he held positions that ranged from Director of Western
Massachusetts to Director of Local Relations. In each position, Bill
demonstrated the same tenacity and dedication to improving people's
lives he carries to this day.
It came as no surprise to those who worked with and knew Bill that
President Clinton would recognize and embrace these same qualities as
he assumed office in 1993. The President appointed Bill to the position
of Regional Director for the Department of Agriculture's Rural
Development Program, and the success of his tenure is well known to
everyone in the three-state region he served. He oversaw more than 65
employees in six offices throughout three states. The program's
successes throughout this time are numerous; he worked with other
agencies
[[Page 6054]]
and officials to obtain new fire trucks for the Palmer Fire Department,
and worked with Congressman Neal and the Ware Selectmen to help move
the police station to its current location. During his eight years of
directing this agency, Bill coordinated the distribution of over $870
million dollars in rural housing programs that helped rural towns
foster and maintain economic development. Concurrent with this service,
Bill was a Member of the Electoral College for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and I congratulated him along with his friends and
colleagues as he cast his vote for the re-election of Bill Clinton and
Al Gore.
Throughout all of these national and State-wide efforts, Bill Bradley
has maintained an iron-clad commitment to community and his neighbors.
He has served as Director of the Ware Cooperative Bank, and mobilized
State and Federal money through the Ware Community Development
Authority. His love of politics is surpassed only by music and his
devotion to his wife, Linda, and I congratulate both of them as they
begin this new chapter in their lives. I have been very fortunate to
have some of the best people I have ever known be involved in my
campaigns and on my staff. Bill Bradley is a credit to his community
and the State of Massachusetts. He has performed 25 years of public
service with a professionalism and dedication that is increasingly
rare, and it is with great pride, respect and affection that I
celebrate his contributions to the lives of people throughout
Massachusetts and the United States of America.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY, INC. AND THE
DEDICATION OF THE ROBERT H. & MARY G. FLINT CAMPUS OF CARING
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I want to congratulate and
honor the Lighthouse of Oakland County, Inc., an independent agency,
that has served as a beacon of hope and opportunity for countless
individuals. Residents in my home state of Michigan will be gathering
this Thursday April 26, 2001 to celebrate the grand opening of the
Robert H. & Mary G. Flint Campus of Caring.
The Lighthouse is a remarkable institution that began as an
ecumenical ministry to assist seniors and low-income families, but has
grown to become a dynamic independent agency dedicated to providing
vital services that enable people to make the transition from
joblessness and despair to independence and empowerment.
The mission of the Lighthouse is administered by three subsidiaries:
Lighthouse Emergency Services, Lighthouse PATH and Lighthouse Community
Development. Independent of one another, these subsidiaries would be an
important agent for social welfare and justice. Together, these three
branches are a comprehensive service provider that is able to assist
individuals and communities as they strive for betterment.
Lighthouse Emergency Services provides a full range of services
including food, housing, medical treatment and clothing assistance to
those who require immediate assistance. The PATH program combines a
full-time residency program with intensive case management that
provides residents with the assistance needed to form clear and
concrete goals for self-improvement. As residents complete their
education or enter job training programs, the Lighthouse PATH provides
an array of services such as child care, legal assistance and domestic
abuse counseling. The Lighthouse Community Development program has
worked, primarily in Pontiac's Unity Park neighborhood, to ensure that
safe and affordable housing is available for low and moderate income
families. Home ownership can ensure the economic well-being and
stability of families and neighborhoods, and this program makes home
ownership a reality by providing home ownership classes, rehabilitating
abandoned houses and building new homes.
The Lighthouse's success at administering these myriad programs has
not gone unnoticed. In 1990, the volunteers of the Lighthouse were
recognized by then President Bush as the 376th Point of Light for their
dedication and service to their community. Lighthouse PATH was a
recipient of the Richard F. Huegli Award for Program Excellence. In
addition, Crain's Business Detroit made the Lighthouse first Runner-up
for best managed non-profit of 1994. In 1997, the Lighthouse deservedly
won this award.
None of the Lighthouse's many awards or important programs would be
possible without the dedication and sacrifice of the many staff and
volunteers who have freely given of their time, talents and resources
to make this program the vital community asset it is today. I have
mentioned only a small portion of the dynamic history of the Lighthouse
of Oakland County, Inc. and the many ways in which this organization
has assisted its community. I know my colleagues will join me in
honoring the Lighthouse of Oakland County, Inc. for its service to the
people of Oakland County and the State of Michigan.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PHYLLISS HENRY
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Phylliss Henry has been a pioneer
in my home State of Iowa, shattering glass ceilings, blazing a bold new
trail for women in law enforcement, and reaching out to help others
follow after her. Her tireless work to stamp out crime and to bring
women to the table in law enforcement have made a lasting impact on our
state.
Back in 1972, Phylliss became the first woman ever to receive a law
enforcement degree from Des Moines Area Community College. She was then
hired as the first female patrol officer in the Des Moines Department,
and she remained the only female patrol officer until 1977. She later
became a Sergeant with the Special Crime Unit and with the
Communication Section where she helped with minority recruitment and
acted as a role model for other women in law enforcement.
Phylliss then made the courageous decision to continue and expand her
education, and she focused her energy on obtaining a Bachelor of
General Studies degree in 1984, an MA in Communications Studies in
1986, and a PhD in Communication Research in 1988, all from the
University of Iowa.
In December of 1990, she became the Support Services Manager of the
Iowa State University Department of Public Safety. As in all her
previous positions, she took the job to a new level, creating new crime
prevention, security and assault awareness programs.
In 1994, Phylliss' outstanding record led to her appointment as a
United States Marshal, the first woman ever to hold this position in
the state of Iowa, and for seven years, she served with distinction.
She was instrumental in leading building renovations projects in Des
Moines and Davenport and in helping to finish up the Court Annex
Building. She also led the initiatives to bring Iowa Communication
Network access to the district.
And she was a one-woman army when it came to getting funding for
critical projects in the district and to stretching every dollar to its
limits. In a few years, she was able to automate the entire district
with limited funding. And during a time when the district was being hit
hard by increases in prisoner populations and decreases in bed space,
she obtained a State of Iowa contract and greatly reduced the crisis
need for federal prison beds.
In addition, throughout her career, Phylliss has never been content
to use her energy only in the workplace. She has contributed to
organizations ranging from the Young Women's Resource Center, the
International and Iowa Associations of Women Police, Children and
Families of Iowa and many more. She even managed to find the time to
co-found the Iowa Association of Women Police.
She has been honored by groups ranging from the Greater Des Moines
YWCA to the Des Moines Metro Women's Network to the International
Association of Women police and more. And it is my pleasure to add
myself to that list and offer my deepest gratitude for her long and
distinguished record of service to our State.
[[Page 6055]]
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred
as indicated:
E-1417. A communication from the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a cumulative report on
rescissions and deferrals dated April 19, 2000; transmitted
jointly, pursuant to the order of January 30, 1975, as
modified by the order of April 11, 1986; to the Committees on
Appropriations; the Budget; and Foreign Relations.
EC-1418. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``25 CFR 183, Use and Distribution of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe Development Trust Fund and San Carlos Apache
Tribe Lease Fund'' (RIN 1076-AE10) received on April 23,
2001; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
EC-1419. A communication from the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Farm Credit Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
proposed fiscal year 2002 budget; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
EC-1420. A communication from the President and Chairman of
the Export-Import Bank of the United States, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to a transaction involving
U.S. exports to Turkey; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
EC-1421. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the
national emergency with respect to Colombia; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-1422. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Branch, U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment to Wool Duty Refund Program'' (RIN 1515-AC85)
received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-1423. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Unit, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Applicable Federal Rates--May 2001'' (Rev. Rul. 2001-22)
received on April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-1424. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Unit, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Section 29(c)(1)(C) Solid Fuel Produced From Coal'' (Rev.
Pro. 2001-30) received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-1425. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Unit, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Appeals Settlement Guidelines: Excise Tax on Virtual
Private Networks'' (UIL: 4251.03-01) received on April 23,
2001; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-1426. A communication from the Chief of the Regulations
Unit, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Rev. Proc. 2001-17'' received on April 23, 2001; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-1427. A communication from the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense, Technology Security Policy, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the delay of a report concerning national security;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1428. A communication from the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relating to
the notification of total obligations exceeding $5.0 million
in fiscal year 2001; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-1429. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to overseas
surplus property; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1430. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``VISAS: Documentation of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants--Visa
Classification Symbols'' (22 CFR Parts 41 and 42) received on
April 19, 2001; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1431. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Legislative Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report relative to the progress made in an
investigation in Kenya; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
EC-1432. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual SEED report for
Fiscal Year 2000; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-1433. A communication from the Secretary of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Annual Report concerning
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-1434. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Guide of Good Practices for
Occupational Radiological Protection in Uranium Facilities''
(STD-1136-2000) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-1435. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Software Quality Assurance'' (N
203.1) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-1436. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Department of Energy Facilities
Technology Partnering Programs'' (O 482.1) received on April
18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-1437. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Reporting Unofficial Travel'' (N
470.2) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-1438. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Security Conditions'' (N 473.6)
received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-1439. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Extension of DOE O 311.1A, Equal
Employment Opportunity and Diversity Program'' (N 311.1)
received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-1440. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Explosive Detection Program'' (N
473.7) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-1441. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Financial Assistance'' (RIN 1901-AA87) received on April 18,
2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-1442. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Law, Office of Environment, Safety and Health,
Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Stabilization, Packing, and
Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials'' (STD-3013-2000)
received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
EC-1443. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Surface Mining, Department of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Utah Regulatory Program'' (UT-038-FOR) received on April
19, 2001; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-1444. A communication from the Acting Associate
Administrator for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
an interim rule to change the NASA Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (48 CFR Parts 1812, 1823, 1852)
received on April 6, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1445. A communication from the Acting Associate
Administrator for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule ``Emergency Medical Services and Evacuations'' (48 CFR
Parts 1842 and 1852) received on April 6, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1446. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a nomination for the position of Deputy
Secretary, Department of Transportation; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1447. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Administrator,
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1448. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the discontinuation of service in acting role
for the position of Administrator, Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
[[Page 6056]]
EC-1449. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the designation of acting officer as
Administrator of the Research and Special Programs
Administration, Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1450. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a discontinuation of service in acting role as
Administrator of the Research and Special Programs
Administration, Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1451. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position as Administrator of
the Research and Special Programs Administration, Department
of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1452. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the discontinuation of service in acting role
as Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration,
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1453. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the designation of acting officer as
Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration,
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1454. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position as Administrator of
the Federal Railroad Administration, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1455. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Administration, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1456. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the return of a nomination for Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1457. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the designation of acting officer for the
position of Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1458. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Associate Deputy
Secretary, Department of Transportation; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1459. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the discontinuation of service in acting role
as Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs, Department of Transportation; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1460. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Assistant
Secretary for Transportation Policy, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1461. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1462. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the return of a nomination for Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, Department
of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1463. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the return of a nomination for Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1464. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, Department
of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1465. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the discontinuation of service in acting role
as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1466. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a designation of acting officer as Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1467. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Secretary of the
Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1468. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy and the designation of acting officer
in the position as Chief Financial Officer of the National
Aeronautic Space Administration; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1469. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a vacancy in the position of Deputy Secretary
of the Department of Transportation; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1470. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the confirmation of the nomination for
Secretary of the Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1471. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a nomination for the position of Secretary of
the Department of Transportation; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1472. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a discontinuation of service in acting role for
Secretary of the Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1473. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the designation of acting officer for the
position of Secretary, Department of Transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1474. A communication from the Attorney/Advisor of the
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a nomination for the position of Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs, Department of
Transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1475. A communication from the General Counsel for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a designation of Acting Officer for the
position of Administrator, United States Fire Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1476. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Waynesboro, VA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0065)) received on
April 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1477. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska--Pollock Closure in the
West Yakutat District, Gulf of Alaska'' received on April 6,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1478. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast and Western Pacific
States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Adjustments
from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain, OR'' received on April
6, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1479. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Exclusive Zone Off Alaska--Closure of B Season Pollock Within
the Shelikof Strait Conservation Area, Gulf of Alaska''
received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1480. A communication from the Attorney of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Light Truck Average
[[Page 6057]]
Fuel Economy Standards, Model Year 2003'' (RIN2127-AI35)
received on April 5, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1481. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program'' (RIN3067-AD12) received on April
6, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1482. A communication from the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
the Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1483. A communication from the Chief of the Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Industry
Guidance on the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C.
Section 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast
Indecency'' (FCC 01-90) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1484. A communication from the Chief of the General and
International Law Division, Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Audit Appeals; Policy and
Procedure'' (RIN2133-AB42) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1485. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone
Regulations; Fore River Bridge Repairs--Weymouth,
Massachusetts'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0007)) received on April
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1486. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone
Regulations: Mission Bay, San Diego, CA'' ((RIN2115-
AA97)(2001-0006)) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1487. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations;
Approaches to Annapolis Harbor, Spa Creek, and Severn River,
Annapolis, Maryland'' ((RIN2115-AE46)(2001-0006)) received on
April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1488. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations;
Western Branch, Elizabeth River, Portsmouth Va'' ((RIN2115-
AE46)(2001-0005)) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1489. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Regulations: Crescent Beach Bridge (SR 206), Crescent Beach,
FL'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0027)) received on April 16, 2001;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1490. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Regulations: Hackensack River, NJ'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-
0026)) received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1491. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Regulations: Shaw Cove, CT'' ((RIN2115-AE47)(2001-0025))
received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1492. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone
Regulations; Gulf of Alaska, Southeast of Narrow Cape, Kodiak
Island, AK'' ((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0009)) received on April
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1493. A communication from the Chief of the Office of
Regulations and Administrative Law, United States Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone
Regulations; Fireworks Display, East River, New York, NY''
((RIN2115-AA97)(2001-0008)) received on April 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1494. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E Airspace;
Phillipsburg, KS'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0071)) received on
April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1495. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment to Class E Airspace; Omaha, NE;
Correction'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0069)) received on April
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1496. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Revocation of Class D Airspace; Fort Worth
Carswell AFB, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0070)) received on
April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1497. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D Airspace; Valdosta
Moody AFB, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0068)) received on April
16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1498. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rome,
NY'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0067)) received on April 16 , 2001;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1499. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A
300 B4-601, -603, -620, -605R, -622R, and -605R Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0178)) received on April 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1500. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model
A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0177)) received on April 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1501. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: SOCATA Groupe
AEROSPATIALE Model TBM 700 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-
0167)) received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1502. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc. Models PA 31, -300, -325, -350, -31P, -31T, -
31T1, -31T2, -31T3, and -31P-350 Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0170)) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1503. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: GE Company CF6
80A3 Series Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0169))
received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1504. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Cessna Aircraft
Company Model 172RG Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0168))
received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1505. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Cessna Aircraft
Company Models 172R and 172S Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0172)) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1506. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica, SA, Model EMB-120 Series
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0171)) received on April 16,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1507. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation,
[[Page 6058]]
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives: Dowty Aerospace Propellers Model
R381/6-123-F/5 Propellers, Correction'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-
0174)) received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1508. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: SAAB Model SF340A
and 340B Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0173))
received on April 16, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1509. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 737-
600, -700, -700C, and -800 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0176)) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1510. A communication from the Program Analyst for the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 767
Series Airplanes Powered by GE Engines'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0175)) received on April 16, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1511. A communication from the Deputy Chief of the
Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``In the Matter of Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Services; Children's Internet
Protection Act'' (FCC 01-120) received on April 16, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1512. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 730202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Huachuca City, Arizona;
Puerto Rico, Arizona; Pine Level Alabama)'' (Doc. No. 00-208,
00-209, 00-211) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1513. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM
Broadcast Stations (Hinton, Whiting, and Underwood, Iowa; and
Blair Nebraska)'' (Doc. No. 99-94) received on April 18,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1514. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Funding Availability for Research Projects of the Causes
for the Decline of Steller Sea Lions in Waters Off Alaska''
received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1515. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Implementing
Changes in the Mackerel Catch Specifications for the Gulf
Migratory Group of King Mackerel Under the Fishery Management
Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic Region'' (RIN0648-AN85) received on
April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1516. A communication from the Chief of the Market
Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Rules Governing
Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed
Against Common Carriers'' (Doc. 96-238) received on April 18,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1517. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.622(b), Table of
Allotments, DTV Broadcast Stations (Hastings, NE) received on
April 18, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1518. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Division, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Avalon, Fountain Valley,
Adelanto, Ridgecrest and Riverside, California)'' (Doc. No.
99-329) received on April 18, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1519. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(2001-0025))
received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1520. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establish Class E Airspace; Salisbury, MD''
((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0073)) received on April 23, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1521. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establish Class E Airspace; Seneca Falls,
NY'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(2001-0074)) received on April 23, 2001;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1522. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (63)'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(2001-0026))
received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1523. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
(22)'' ((RIN2120-AA63)(2001-0003)) received on April 23,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1524. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model
A330-301; -321, -341, and -342 Airplanes; and Model A340-211,
-212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0181)) received on April 23, 2001; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1525. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas
Model DC 9, 33, 42, 55, and 61 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-
AA64)(2001-0182)) received on April 23, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1526. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class D Airspace;
Shreveport Downtown Airport, Shreveport, LA'' ((RIN2120-
AA66)(2001-0072)) received on April 23, 2001; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1527. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas
Model DC 10 and MD 11 Series Airplanes, and KC 10A
Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0179)) received on April 23,
2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1528. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Eurocopter France
Model AS 350B, BA, B1, B2, and D; and AS 355E, F, F1, F2, and
N Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0180)) received on April
23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-1529. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (24)'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(2001-0024))
received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1530. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (41)'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(2001-0022))
received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1531. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 737-
600, 700, and 800 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-
0184)) received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-1532. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures;
Miscellaneous Amendments (86)'' ((RIN2120-AA65)(2001-0021))
received on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-1533. A communication from the Program Analyst of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives:
[[Page 6059]]
Airbus Model A330-301, 321, 322 Series Airplanes and Model
A340 Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2001-0183)) received
on April 23, 2001; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. GRASSLEY, from the Committee on Finance, without
amendment:
S. 763: An original bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education
individual retirement accounts for elementary and secondary
school expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of
contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 107-12).
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.
Breaux, and Mr. DeWine):
S. 758. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to
authorize the annual enrollment of land in the wetlands
reserve program, to extend the wetlands reserve program
through 2005, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
S. 759. A bill to amend title 4 of the United States Code
to prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory tax on
income earned within such State by nonresidents of such
State; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 760. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to encourage and accelerate the nationwide production, retail
sale, and consumer use of new motor vehicles that are powered
by fuel cell technology, hybrid technology, battery electric
technology, alternative fuels, or other advanced motor
vehicle technologies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 761. A bill to provide loans for the improvement of
telecommunications services on Indian reservations; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Reid, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 762. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow a credit against income tax for information
technology training expenses and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 763. An original bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to allow tax-free expenditures from education
individual retirement accounts for elementary and secondary
school expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of
contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes; from
the Committee on Finance; placed on the calendar.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon,
Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. 764. A bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to impose just and reasonable load-differentiated
demand rates or cost-of-service based rates on sales by
public utilities of electric energy at wholesale in the
western energy market, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and
Mr. DeWine):
S. 765. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide a carbon sequestration investment tax credit, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 766. A bill to impose notification and reporting
requirements in connection with grants of waivers of the
limitation on certain procurements of the Department of
Defense that is known as the Berry amendment, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr.
Akaka, and Mr. Hollings):
S. 767. A bill to extend the Brady background checks to gun
shows, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 768. A bill to amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United
States Code, to clarify the method for computing certain
annuities under the Civil Service Retirement System which are
based (in whole or in part) on part-time service, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and
Mr. DeWine):
S. 769. A bill to establish a carbon sequestration program
and an implementing panel within the Department of Commerce
to enhance international conservation, to promote the role of
carbon sequestration as a means of slowing the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and to reward and
encourage voluntary, pro-active environmental efforts on the
issue of global climate change; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 770. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act to allow up to 24 months of vocational
educational training to be counted as a work activity under
the temporary assistance to needy families program; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
S. J. Res. 13. A joint resolution conferring honorary
citizenship of the United States on Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du
Motier, also known as the Marquis de Lafayette; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Crapo,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Dodd, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Kennedy, and Mr. Bayh):
S. Res. 72. A resolution designating the month of April as
``National Sexual Assault Awareness Month''; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. Con. Res. 33. A concurrent resolution supporting a
National Charter Schools Week; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 39
At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 39, a bill to provide a
national medal for public safety officers who act with extraordinary
valor above and beyond the call of duty, and for other purposes.
S. 41
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 41, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the research credit
and to increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit.
S. 88
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton)
were added as cosponsors of S. 88, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide an incentive to ensure that all Americans gain
timely and equitable access to the Internet over current and future
generations of broadband capability.
S. 161
At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), and
the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) were added as cosponsors of S.
161, a bill to establish the Violence Against Women Office within the
Department of Justice.
S. 170
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of S. 170, a bill to amend title 10,
United States Code, to permit retired members of the Armed Forces who
have a service-connected disability to receive both military retired
pay by reason of their years of military service and disability
compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their
disability.
[[Page 6060]]
S. 177
At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 177, a bill
to amend the provisions of title 39, United States Code, relating to
the manner in which pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit
programs for postmasters are established.
S. 206
At the request of Mr. Shelby, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 206, a bill to repeal the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, to enact the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 2001, and for other purposes.
S. 281
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 281, a bill to authorize the
design and construction of a temporary education center at the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial.
S. 305
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the name of the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 305, a bill
to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove the reduction in the
amount of Survivor Benefit Plan annuities at age 62.
S. 311
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. Carnahan) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) were
added as cosponsors of S. 311, a bill to amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide for partnerships in
character education.
S. 345
At the request of Mr. Allard, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) were
added as cosponsors of S. 345, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act
to strike the limitation that permits interstate movement of live
birds, for the purpose of fighting, to States in which animal fighting
is lawful.
S. 350
At the request of Mr. Chafee, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) were
added as cosponsors of S. 350, a bill to amend the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to
promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance State response
programs, and for other purposes.
S. 403
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the names of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) were added as
cosponsors of S. 403, a bill to improve the National Writing Project.
S. 413
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 413, a bill to amend part F
of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to
improve and refocus civic education, and for other purposes.
S. 512
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 512, a bill to
foster innovation and technological advancement in the development of
the Internet and electronic commerce, and to assist the States in
simplifying their sales and use taxes.
S. 567
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 567, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gain treatment under
section 631(b) of such Code for outright sales of timber by landowners.
S. 570
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) were
added as cosponsors of S. 570, a bill to establish a permanent Violence
Against Women Office at the Department of Justice.
S. 623
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from New
York (Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 623, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access to health insurance and
Medicare benefits for individuals ages 55 to 65, to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 50 percent credit against income tax
for payment of such premiums and of premiums for certain COBRA
continuation coverage, and for other purposes.
S. 640
At the request of Mr. Thompson, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 640, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless telecommunications
equipment in the definition of qualified technological equipment for
purposes of determining the depreciation treatment of such equipment.
S. 661
At the request of Mr. Thompson, the names of the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) were
added as cosponsors of S. 661, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to repeal the 4.3-cent motor fuel exercise taxes on
railroads and inland waterway transportation which remain in the
general fund of the Treasury.
S. 673
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 673, a bill to establish
within the executive branch of the Government an interagency committee
to review and coordinate United States nonproliferation efforts in the
independent states of the former Soviet Union.
S. 676
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 676, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently the subpart F
exemption for active financing income.
S. 677
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 677, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the required use of
certain principal repayments on mortgage subsidy bond financing to
redeem bonds, to modify the purchase price limitation under mortgage
subsidy bond rules based on median family income, and for other
purposes.
S. 686
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 686, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against tax for
energy efficient appliances.
S. 694
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 694, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a deduction
equal to fair market value shall be allowed for charitable
contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions
created by the donor.
S. 697
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) were added
as cosponsors of S. 697, a bill to modernize the financing of the
railroad retirement system and to provide enhanced benefits to
employees and beneficiaries.
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine), and the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) were added as cosponsors of S.
697, supra.
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine), and the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) were added as cosponsors of S.
697, supra.
S. CON. RES. 11
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Louisiana
[[Page 6061]]
(Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) were added as cosponsors of
S. Con. Res. 11, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of
Congress to fully use the powers of the Federal Government to enhance
the science base required to more fully develop the field of health
promotion and disease prevention, and to explore how strategies can be
developed to integrate lifestyle improvement programs into national
policy, our health care system, schools, workplaces, families and
communities.
S. CON. RES. 28
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Torricelli) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 28, a
concurrent resolution calling for a United States effort to end
restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the enclaved people in
the occupied area of Cyprus.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Breaux, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 758. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to
authorize the annual enrollment of land in the wetlands
reserve program, to extend the wetlands reserve program
through 2005, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Lincoln, Breaux,
and DeWine be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 758
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.
(a) Annual Enrollment Authority.--Section 1237(b) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Annual enrollment authority.--For each of calendar
years 2001 through 2005, the Secretary may enroll in the
wetlands reserve program not more than 250,000 acres.''.
(b) Extension of Program.--
``(1) In general.--Section 1237(c) of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(c)) is amended by striking ``2002''
and inserting ``2005''.
``(2) Funding.--Section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2005''.
(c) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 1237F of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837f) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--Notwithstanding chapter 63
of title 31, United States Code, for purposes of carrying out
this subchapter, the Secretary may enter into a cooperative
agreement with a State, a political subdivision of a State,
or any organization or person, for the acquisition of goods
or services (including personal services) if the Secretary
determines that--
``(1) the purposes of the agreement serve wetland
conservation;
``(2) all parties to the agreement contribute resources to
the accomplishment of the purposes; and
``(3) the agreement furthers the purposes of this
subchapter.''.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
S. 759. A bill to amend title 4 of the United States Code
to prohibit a State from imposing a discriminatory tax on
income earned within such State by nonresident of such State;
to the Committee on Finance.
____________________
THE NONRESIDENT INCOME TAX FREEDOM ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
a bill called ``The Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001.''
My legislation would prohibit a state from imposing income taxes on
income earned within such state by nonresidents of such state.
Simply put, my bill bans state income taxes levied on nonresident
workers.
I am sure that every American has studied the Boston Tea Party.
In 1776, the 13 American colonies refused to pay unjust taxes and
declared their independence from Britain.
The resulting American revolution was a revolution of ideas and
together the 13 colonies created a government which derived its just
authority from the consent of the governed.
In 1764, Britain imposed the Sugar Act on the American colonies, that
tax was followed by the Stamp Act and the Townshend Revenue Act.
The Stamp Act was essentially a paper tax of less than one cent, but
this tax inspired the formation of the Sons of Liberty, who burned the
stamps in protest of the tax.
A tea tax was imposed on the American colonies of less than one cent,
but this tax motivated Bostonians to protest the tax in the Boston Tea
Party.
The result of these British taxes were that Americans openly rebelled
in order to fight those unjust taxes.
I am not comparing the current situation to the American revolution,
but I am proposing legislation consistent with the theme of the
American Revolution--No taxation without representation.
When a citizen from New Hampshire goes to work in Massachusetts or
Maine or Vermont and pays their income tax, it is not reciprocated. We
don't have an income tax. We don't tax them. They don't live in that
State, and, therefore, I don't believe they should pay that tax.
My bill will grant Federal protection for nonresident taxpayers and
prohibit this taxation without representation.
I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this regardless of the
tax situation in their own States. The State of Oklahoma, or the State
of New Hampshire, or any other State has a perfect right to tax its
citizens in whatever way the citizens allow their elected
representatives. But the question is, Should the citizens of Wyoming or
some other State tell another State what taxes they should pay on their
citizens?
The problem exists today where workers from one State are being taxed
by others, and these taxpayers have no vote. They have no say and no
recourse into how their income tax money is spent. Approximately 90,000
from New Hampshire go to Massachusetts and work. The taxes are
collected from them for Massachusetts income taxes. They have no
recourse. They have to pay those taxes.
As a matter of fact, New Hampshire residents pay over $200 million in
income taxes to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, all of which have
income taxes. New Hampshire doesn't. In 1999, Vermont imposed an income
tax on 10,840 New Hampshire residents and raised $10.2 million in
revenue off the backs of New Hampshire workers who had nothing to say
about it, nor could they do anything about it.
In 1998, Massachusetts levied an income tax on 89,336 New Hampshire
residents and raised $184 million, again, off the residents of New
Hampshire.
And finally, in Maine, in 1998, 8,219 New Hampshire residents were
taxed and $9.3 million was raised in revenue.
This is taxation without representation. I am not trying to start
another Revolutionary War here, but it is not fair. I believe that
whether you have an income tax or not in your State, the issue is
really should you be able to levy an income tax against another citizen
who lives in another State.
In New Hampshire, we have always had a keen interest in taxes, as a
matter of fact, a keen interest in less taxes. One of the greatest
Governors in the history of our State, Gov. Meldrim Thomson, passed
away last Thursday at the age of 89. Mel Thomson was a hero to many of
us in the antitax movement. His campaign theme, when he ran for
Governor three times, was ``ax the tax.'' And that he did. He fought
taxes and cut taxes time and time again in our State. He helped our
State to assume that true ``live free or die'' tradition that is so
popular and so well known.
It is a strength that New Hampshire politicians have not allowed a
State income tax to be levied on the hard-working residents of that
State. People still do not understand it. They come to me and say: How
can you do this without an income tax? How do you get
[[Page 6062]]
along? We do it through frugality and responsibility and taking care of
the hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers.
As recently as last week, my friends in the New Hampshire State House
defeated a sales tax proposal. I congratulate them for it. The
Republican-led legislature knocked down a 2.5-percent sales tax which
would have helped Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont to discourage their
State citizens from coming across the border to shop because we would
have begun to get our States equalized in their taxes.
We have this great tradition in New Hampshire of less taxes, less
spending, and fiscal responsibility. That is why I was pleased and
proud just today--and I know the Presiding Officer's rating is high up
in this rating; and I will check the rating--I was pleased today to be
told the National Taxpayers Union ranked me No. 7 in the Senate for
fiscal responsibility on cutting spending, cutting taxes, and cutting
regulations. It is an award of which I am very proud. But it is not so
much me; it is tradition in New Hampshire.
If you advocate those sales taxes, if you advocate those income
taxes, if you advocate more taxes, you won't be reelected. There are a
lot of people who said, let's have a sales or income tax, and they have
been defeated and have not been heard from since, and many of them had
to leave town.
I think it is rather unfortunate Governor Thomson passed away at the
very time President Bush--a man who Governor Thompson admired, and
President Bush admired Governor Thompson as well; it was reciprocal--
but at the very time President Bush is proposing a $1.6 trillion tax
cut for the American people, the man who led the ``ax the tax'' fight
in New Hampshire has passed away. So President Bush has picked up the
torch from Governor Thomson, and New Hampshire is proud of that.
I am proud of President Bush's budget proposal to provide the typical
family of four paying income taxes $1,600 in tax relief.
John Marshall said: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.''
Taxes have to be used responsibly. As I said today, when I was asked
about the National Taxpayers Union rating, it does not mean we do not
spend money. We do spend money. We have a responsibility to spend money
for our military, for those in need, or whatever. But we have to spend
it responsibly. I think that is the key issue.
The taxers in New Hampshire's neighboring States are very clever.
They impose the income tax on New Hampshire residents without any fear
whatsoever of any political retaliation. It is really cowardice. The
officials there tax citizens from my State of New Hampshire who go into
Massachusetts to work, and they cannot vote. They cannot vote. They do
not have any say about it. What can they do about it? It is not fair.
We ought to change it. I say that with respect to my colleagues no
matter what the tax status of your own State is. Tax all you want in
your State, but do not tax people from another State. And I think that
is fair.
Today's average taxpayer faces a combined Federal, State, and local
burden of nearly 50 percent of their income. I think that is a little
too much. It is time for a change. This is one small way to help New
Hampshire citizens, as I know so many are trying to help all of our
citizens with tax cuts at the national level.
So I ask my colleagues to support George W. Bush's tax cut and my tax
fairness initiative to give certainly New Hampshire citizens and all
Americans a little boost for their pocketbooks, so they can spend some
money the way they would like to spend it, to have it in their pockets.
That $200 million in the pockets of taxpayers in New Hampshire can be
used for a lot of things they would like to use it for, including
college education, health care, putting money away for a rainy day, or
whatever.
I close by saying, my bill amends chapter 4 of title 4 of the U.S.
Code to add a provision that says, ``a State or political subdivision
thereof may not impose a tax on income earned within such State or
political subdivision by non-residents of such State.'' In other words,
if they are not your citizens, then you cannot tax them with an income
tax. It explicitly allows a State, however--and this is a very
important point--if two States want to enter into a voluntary compact
or agreement to tax one another--if the two States agree--they can do
that. There is an exception for that if the two States agree.
This is consistent with the theme of ``no taxation without
representation'' because residents who become angry at politicians who
vote for income tax compacts can vote the offending politician out of
office. That is why it is good.
I look forward to pressing hard on this and getting the attention of
my colleagues. It is my hope I can be a part of the President's push to
restore reason and good sense to the Federal tax law.
I ask my colleagues to support me on the Nonresident Income Tax
Freedom Act of 2001 to help thousands of New Hampshire citizens who are
treated unfairly by taxation without representation.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Snow, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Rockfeller, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 762. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for information technology training expenses
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the final months of the 106th
Congress, the Senate and House completed action on the American
Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act which will respond to the
shortage of skilled IT workers and help ensure our nation's continued
growth and leadership in the information technology field. Congress
increased the cap on the number of H1B visas available for foreign
workers with high-tech skills to fill the job vacancies in information
technology in the US.
As important as action by Congress to permit companies to hire
foreign-born skilled IT workers is, this legislation by itself will not
address our long-term IT worker needs. Throughout the recent debate on
the IT worker shortage, I have urged that we focus our efforts on IT
training and partnerships between the business and education
communities. Many excellent partnerships between the IT community,
state and local government, high schools, and colleges and universities
that provide individuals of all ages with education and training
opportunities in information technology are already underway.
Partnerships include ExplorNet, a non-profit organization working
with local community and school officials to train educators and
students to rebuild computers; e-learning opportunities for IT training
through more than 100 community colleges nationwide, including Bismarck
State College; Cisco Systems Training Academies in many school
districts; AOL/Time Warner Foundation's ``Time to Read'' literacy
program; Green Thumb and Microsoft working with seniors to improve
their IT skills; Great Plains Software's, Fargo, ND, partnership with
Valley City State University; and Texas Instruments sponsored training
for educators to improve technology skills in the classroom. These are
excellent examples of the IT and education communities working together
to meet the growing demand for information technology skills.
Although these partnerships are helping to train individuals to fill
many IT job vacancies, these educational opportunities cannot keep pace
with the demand for workers with advanced technical skills--a demand
that continues for the long term despite our current economic slowdown
and recent layoffs in the IT sector. Furthermore, continuing to rely on
foreign workers who obtain H1B visas is not the answer to our shortage
of skilled IT professionals.
A report of 685 companies released by the Information Technology
Association of America ITAA, on April 2, 2001, confirms this continuing
demand for
[[Page 6063]]
skilled IT workers. The ITAA assessment of the current IT job market,
although reporting a significant decline in the demand for IT workers
because of the economic slowdown, confirms there are thousands of
positions that employers are not able to fill because firms are unable
to find workers with the necessary technical skills. The study
estimates there are currently 425,000 vacancies in the IT field for
skilled technical positions. Harris Miller, president, of ITAA,
remarked, ``. . . hiring has by no means halted for IT workers, rather,
demand still far exceeds supply in this market. Miller continues to
encourage individuals to pursue advanced technical education programs.
He remarked, ``this is actually the time to prepare yourself.''
Mr. President, in response to this continuing long-term demand for
skilled IT workers, I am introducing legislation, the Technology
Education and Training Act of 2001, TETA, to provide a tax credit for
businesses offering IT training and to enable individuals enrolled in
certified IT training to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship and
Lifetime Learning Credits. This legislation is similar to a bill that I
introduced in the 106th Congress, and I am particularly pleased that
Senator Snowe is joining me again in this bipartisan effort as the
principal cosponsor. Also joining me as cosponsors are Senators Reid,
DeWine, Rockefeller, and Johnson, colleagues who have taken leadership
roles in focusing attention on the importance of information technology
for our economy and encouraging IT education and partnerships.
I am honored that this legislation is also endorsed by a broad
coalition of IT, business and educational organizations, including
Computing Technology Industry Association, CompTIA, the Technology
Workforce Coalition, the American Society for Training and Development,
the Information Technology Association of America, the Information
Technology Training Association, the Career College Association, the
National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses, Cisco Systems,
Novell, Compaq Computer Corporation, Gateway and Microsoft.
Under our legislation, businesses would receive a credit against
taxes equal to 100 percent of the first $1,500 of information
technology training expenses for non-degree IT skills certification on
behalf of a current or prospective employee. The credit would increase
to $2,000 if the training program is offered in an empowerment zone, an
enterprise community, an area declared a disaster zone, a school
district with 50 percent or more of students participating in the
school lunch program, a tribal community, a rural enterprise community,
involves a small business with 200 or fewer employees or involves an
individual with a disability.
Additionally, this legislation would amend current law regarding the
Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits to permit individuals
enrolled in non-degree IT training programs and not attending a Title
IV institution to be eligible to apply for the Hope Scholarship or
Lifetime Learning Credit. Under current law, individuals are not
eligible to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship or the Lifetime
Learning Credits unless the programs are offered through a Title IV
higher education or proprietary institution.
In order to qualify for the Hope Scholarship or Lifetime Learning
Credit, the IT training program must lead to certification in an IT
skill similar to programs offered by Cisco, Microsoft, Novell, and
CompTIA. Under the proposed changes in the Technology Education and
Training Act, the certification offered by the commercial information
technology training provider must be approved by the Secretary of
Treasury in consultation with an Information Technology Training
Certification Board.
The shortage of skilled information technology workers will continue
to be a major concern for all sectors of our economy despite the
current economic slowdown and the recent layoffs in the IT sector. Our
continued growth and leadership in formation technology will depend on
a sufficient number of highly trained workers. Additionally, as
economies around the world rebound and countries, particularly in Asia,
develop their own high-tech corridors, it will be difficult to continue
to recruit high-tech workers from these countries to meet the needs of
our own economy.
Rather than continue our dependency on the H1B program, I believe
that encouraging partnerships between the IT and education communities
and authorizing additional incentives for businesses and individuals to
take advantage of IT skills training offers a more reasonable approach
to meeting our long-term high-tech worker needs. The Technology
Education and Training Act authorizes important initiatives to respond
to this critical shortage. I welcome additional cosponsors of this
legislation and urge my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to
support the proposed changes in TETA during consideration of tax
legislation in the 107th Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation along with
statements of endorsement for the Technology Education and Training Act
from the Technology Workforce Coalition, the Information Technology
Association of America, and the American Society for Training and
Development be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 762
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Technology Education and
Training Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM
EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 30B. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENSES.
``(a) General Rule.--In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a
trade or business during the taxable year, there shall be
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter
for such taxable year an amount equal to 100 percent of
information technology training program expenses of the
taxpayer and any employee of the taxpayer paid or incurred by
the taxpayer during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of information technology
training program expenses with respect to any individual
which may be taken into account under subsection (a) for the
taxable year shall not exceed $1,500.
``(2) Increase in credit amount for participation in
certain programs and for certain individuals.--The dollar
amount in paragraph (1) shall be increased (but not above
$2,000) by the amount of information technology training
program expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer--
``(A) with respect to a program operated--
``(i) in an empowerment zone or enterprise community
designated under part I of subchapter U or a renewal
community designated under part I of subchapter X,
``(ii) in a school district in which at least 50 percent of
the students attending schools in such district are eligible
for free or reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch
program established under the National School Lunch Act,
``(iii) in an area designated as a disaster area by the
Secretary of Agriculture or by the President under the
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the taxable
year or the 4 preceding taxable years,
``(iv) in a rural enterprise community designated under
section 766 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999,
``(v) in an area designated by the Secretary of Agriculture
as a Rural Economic Area Partnership Zone,
``(vi) in an area over which an Indian tribal government
(as defined in section 7701(a)(40)) has jurisdiction, or
``(vii) by an employer who has 200 or fewer employees for
each business day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the
current or preceding calendar year, or
``(B) in the case of an individual with a disability.
``(c) Information Technology Training Program Expenses.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `information technology
training program expenses' means expenses paid or incurred by
reason of the participation of the taxpayer (or any employee
of the taxpayer) in any information technology training
program if such expenses lead to an industry-accepted
information technology certification for the participant.
Such term shall only include includes expenses paid for in
connection with course
[[Page 6064]]
work and certification testing which is essential to
assessing skill acquisition.
``(2) Information technology training program.--The term
`information technology training program' means a program for
an industry-accepted information technology certification--
``(A) by any information technology trade association or
corporation, and
``(B) which--
``(i) is provided for the employees of such association or
corporation, or
``(ii) involves--
``(I) employers, and
``(II) State training programs, school districts,
university systems, higher education institutions (as defined
in section 101(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965), or
certified commercial information technology training
providers.
``(3) Certified commercial information technology training
provider.--
``(A) In general.--The term `certified commercial
information technology training provider' means a private
sector organization providing an information technology
training program which leads to an approved information
technology industry certification for the participants.
``(B) Approved industry certification.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), an information technology industry
certification shall be considered approved if such
certification is approved by the Secretary, in consultation
with the Information Technology Training Certification
Advisory Board.
``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit
under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed
with respect to information technology training program
expenses taken into account for the credit under this
section.
``(e) Certain rules made applicable.--For purposes of this
section, rules similar to the rules of section 45A(e)(2) and
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply.
``(f) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of--
``(1) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under the subpart A and the
previous sections of this subpart, over
``(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 30B. Information technology training program expenses.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING CERTIFICATION
ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an Information
Technology Training Certification Advisory Board (in this
section referred to as the ``Board'').
(b) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of not more
than 15 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury
from among individuals--
(1) associated with information technology certification
and training associations and businesses; and
(2) who are not officers or employees of the Federal
Government.
(c) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not less often than
annually.
(d) Chairperson.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Board shall
elect a Chairperson from among its members.
(2) Chairperson.--The chairperson shall be an individual
who is a member of an information technology industry trade
association.
(e) Duties.--The Board shall develop a list of information
technology industry certifications, for approval by the
Secretary of the Treasury, that qualify the provider of the
certification as a certified commercial information
technology training provider under section 30B(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section (2)(a).
(f) Submission of List.--Not later than October 1, 2001,
and each year thereafter, the Board shall submit the list
required under subsection (e) to the Secretary of the
Treasury.
(g) Board personnel matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Board
shall serve without compensation.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.
(h) Termination of the Board.--Section 14(b) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
Board.
SEC. 4. HOPE SCHOLARSHIP AND LIFETIME LEARNING CREDITS
INCLUDE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING CENTERS.
(a) In General.--Section 25A(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to eligible educational institution)
is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible
educational institution' means--
``(A) an institution--
``(i) which is described in section 101(b) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, and
``(ii) which is eligible to participate in a program under
title IV of such Act, or
``(B) a certified commercial information technology
training provider (as defined in section 30B(c)(3)).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section
221(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``section 25A(f)(2)'' and inserting ``section
25A(f)(2)(A)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
____
Technology Workforce Coalition,
Arlington, VA.
For Immediate Release
Senate Introduces Tax Credit To Ease IT Worker Shortage
Washington, April 24, 2001.--Help may soon be available for
companies suffering from a shortage of skilled IT workers. On
Tuesday, the United States Senate introduced the ``Technology
Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001,'' which gives
individuals and employers tax credits of up to $2,000 for IT
training expenses. Sponsored by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND),
Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike DeWine (R-OH), and Harry Reid (D-
NV), TETA works to help individuals get needed IT training,
thus easing America's IT worker shortage.
``Headlines may scream out high-tech layoffs, but the plain
fact is that IT jobs are going empty because there are not
enough skilled people to fill them,'' noted Grant Mydland,
Director of the Technology Workforce Coalition. Mydland
applauded the bill's introduction and urged Congress' quick
consideration and passage of TETA.
Essentially, TETA:
Provides a tax credit of up to $1,500 for IT training
expenses paid by employers
Amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits so
individuals can better access IT training courses at all of
the available institutions and training centers
Allows tax credits of up to $2,000 for small businesses, as
well as for people residing in and companies operating in
empowerment zones and other qualified areas
``Nearly half of all IT jobs that will be created in 2001
will remain vacant,'' Mydland added. ``IT drives our economy.
TETA gives individuals and companies the necessary
educational tools to meet America's rapidly evolving IT
needs. The Senate should be congratulated for its foresight
in addressing a significant challenge to U.S. prosperity and
growth.''
____
Summary of the Technology Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001
Introduced by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike
DeWine (R-OH), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Representatives Jerry Weller (R-
IL) and Jim Moran (D-VA)
Provides a tax credit for 100% of the first $1,500 of
information technology training expenses paid for by an
employer.
Amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to make
it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for
information technology training expenses.
The training program must result in certification.
The allowed credit would be $2,000 for small businesses and
all companies or individuals in enterprise zones, empowerment
zones, and other qualified areas.
why this tax credit is necessary
According to a 1999 Comp TIA Workforce Study, as a result
of unfilled IT positions, the U.S. economy lost $105.5
billion in spending that would have gone to salaries and
training, this reduced household income by $37.2 billion.
An estimated 268,740 (10%) of IT service and support
positions went unfilled in 1999, resulting in $4.5 billion
per year in lost worker productivity.
ITAA study released April 2, 2001, predicts a shortage of
425,000 of the 900,000 new IT workers needed in 2001.
a public-private partnership
Allows the private sector to determine who, what, where and
how to train workers.
Helps individuals seek the training they need to enter or
re-enter the IT workforce.
Fills the IT worker pipeline with thousands of new and
retrained skilled IT workers.
Helps cities all across America fill thousands of available
IT jobs.
____
The Information Technology Association of America
For Immediate Release, April 24, 2001.
ITAA Praises IT Training Tax Credit Bill
Arlington, VA.--The Information Technology Association of
America (ITAA) today hailed the Technology Education and
Training Act of 2001 introduced by Senators Kent Conrad,
Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine and Harry Reid as a vital step
toward a permanent fix of the current high-tech workers
shortage in the U.S.
[[Page 6065]]
The bill would allow employers a $1500 credit against
income tax for expenses incurred by high technology job
training programs for employees, and a $2000 credit for small
businesses or all companies in enterprise zones or
empowerment zones. ITAA believes the bill would encourage
companies to go the extra mile in training U.S. workers for
high tech jobs.
``Tax credits for business to train and retrain workers
mean more high-paying, high-tech jobs for American workers,''
said ITAA President Harris N. Miller. ``The current high
vacancy rate for IT jobs represents thousands of missed
opportunities for American workers, and the impact of failing
to address this shortage can be felt as we see more jobs
shipped overseas. This bill is sound public policy.''
ITAA is the industry leader in combating the high-tech
worker shortage. In its latest study of the demand for IT
workers, When Can You Start?, ITAA found that the number of
needed IT positions in the U.S. had declined to 900,000 for
2001, with an expected vacancy rate of 425,000. While
substantially lower than in 2000, the study shows that demand
for approximately skilled high tech workers persists.
The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
provides global public policy, business networking, and
national leadership to promote the continued rapid growth of
the IT industry. ITAA consists of over 500 direct corporate
members throughout the U.S., and a global network of 41
countries' IT associations. The Association plays the leading
role in issues of IT industry concern including information
security, taxes and finance policy, digital intellectual
property protection, telecommunications competition,
workforce and education, immigration, online privacy and
consumer protection, government IT procurement, human
resources and e-commerce policy. ITAA members range from the
smallest IT start-ups to industry leaders in the Internet,
software, IT services, ASP, digital content, systems
integration, telecommunications, and enterprise solution
fields.
____
The American Society for
Training and Development,
Alexandria, VA.
For Immediate Release
ASTD Endorses the Technology Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001
Alexandria, VA, April 24.--The American Society for
Training & Development (ASTD) today congratulated Senator
Kent Conrad (D-ND) and other leading members of the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives for introducing the
Technology Education & Training Act (TETA) of 2001.
The legislation would provide a tax credit for 100% of the
first $1,500 of IT training expenses paid for by an employer.
It also amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to
make it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for
IT training expenses.
``Given the shortage of skilled IT workers, the Technology
Education & Training Act of 2001 will go a long way toward
filling the gap and providing access to additional training
opportunities offered by higher education institutions and
training providers,'' said Tina Sung, President & CEO of
ASTD. ``Training is the key to preparing and maintaining a
strong workforce.''
ASTA's data shows that organizations that make the
investment in training are more financially successful. In a
study of 575 U.S.-based publicly traded firms during 1996,
1997, and 1998, ASTD found that companies that invested $680
more in training per employee than the average company in the
study improved their Total Shareholder Return (TSR) the next
year by six percentage points.
Founded in 1944, ASTD is the world's premiere professional
association in the field of workplace learning and
performance. ASTD's membership includes more than 70,000
professionals in organizations from every level of the field
of workplace learning and performance in more than 100
countries. Its leadership and members work in more than
15,000 multinational corporations, small and medium sized
businesses, government agencies, colleges, and universities.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 764. A bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
impose just and reasonable load-differentiated demand rates or cost-of-
service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric energy at
wholesale in the western energy market, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, by now we know that there will not be
enough electricity supply to meet demand in California this summer and
that there will be significant rolling blackouts.
As the peak summer demand for power in the State kicks in over the
next few months, the crisis is only going to deepen, and we may see
electricity prices in California and the Northwest reach unprecedented
levels.
And without intervention by the Federal Government, the price gouging
that has occurred over the past 6 months will almost certainly
continue.
In fact, it looks like California will spend 10 times more for power
in 2001 than it spent in 1999, an increase from $7 billion to $70
billion.
And I predict that if left unchecked, these price spikes will spread
to other states as well.
But despite the severity and scope of this crisis, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, FERC, has failed to take necessary steps to
address the problem.
Since last August, I have called upon FERC to impose a temporary
wholesale price cap or cost of service-based rates on energy prices in
the Western market.
But FERC, an agency whose sole mission is to regulate the energy
market, has refused to act. Today, we introduce this legislation to
force FERC to do its job.
Some have argued that a bill to control energy prices would remove
incentives for companies to build additional energy generation,
exacerbating the situation.
While I agree that we desperately need new supply, I believe that a
price cap would provide temporary price stability and reliability until
the market returns to normal.
And quite frankly, I think that with prices for power 10 times more
than they were in 1999, there is more than enough incentive for
suppliers to sell into the Western market.
With cost of service based rates, energy suppliers would generate
significant profits and be guaranteed a reasonable rate of return.
With wholesale price caps, companies would be able to decide for
themselves whether it is profitable to produce at a given price.
In fact, the energy crisis we are now experiencing is marked much
more by the withholding of energy supply from the market than an
unwillingness to build additional generation.
In fact, California expects to have 20,000 additional megawatts on
line by 2004, enough power for 20 million additional people.
But because it takes 2-3 years to site new power generation, not
enough energy can be brought online in time to help the situation this
summer.
Price controls, if done right, could actually bring more power into
the market.
Indeed, the temporary cost-based rates and/or the regional price cap
that Senator Smith and I are proposing will eliminate that incentive.
Thus, generators would have no reason to withhold power to the market.
With that said, let me talk briefly about what this bill would do:
The bill requires FERC to set either a temporary price cap or cost of
service based rates (with a reasonable rate of return). And make no
mistake this bill is temporary; it is intended to get us through two
summers. In order to qualify, a state must allow its utilities to
recover costs from ratepayers and a state must pass electricity rates
onto ratepayers. Though a state regulatory authority would still
determine the manner in which wholesale rates are passed onto
consumers. In addition, the bill directs FERC to end the temporary
suspension of the natural gas transportation rate cap. Even today the
price of natural gas in Southern California is about 3 times the cost
in neighboring San Juan, New Mexico, $13 Decatherm vs. $4.50 Decatherm.
The bill directs FERC to require that anyone selling natural gas in a
bundled transaction into California to disclose the commodity and
transportation components of the price. When a company purchases both
the transportation and commodity components of natural gas, there is no
reporting requirement as to the price of each transaction. The bill
also requires that all future orders to sell natural gas or electricity
to an affected state must include a reasonable assurance of payment.
I am deeply disappointed that FERC will not do its job and protect
consumers and businesses in the West.
It is my hope that FERC will reconsider its opposition to price caps
or
[[Page 6066]]
cost-based rates. Price caps or cost-based rates may be the only way to
prevent the further transfer of wealth from the Western region to
energy suppliers.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 765. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a carbon sequestration investment tax credit, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 765
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Carbon Sequestration
Investment Tax Credit Act''.
SEC. 2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 45E. CARBON SEQUESTRATION INVESTMENT CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, in the case
of an eligible taxpayer's investment in a carbon
sequestration project approved by the implementing panel
under section 2 of the International Carbon Conservation Act,
the carbon sequestration investment credit determined under
this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to--
``(A) $2.50, multiplied by
``(B) the number of tons of carbon the implementing panel
determines was sequestrated in such project during the
calendar year ending with or within such taxable year,
multiplied by
``(C) the percentage of the total investment in such
project which is represented by the investment in such
project which is attributable, directly or indirectly, to the
eligible taxpayer, as determined by the implementing panel.
``(2) Aggregate dollar limitation.--The credit determined
under paragraph (1) for any taxable year, when added to any
credit allowed to the eligible taxpayer with respect to the
such project in any preceding taxable year, shall not exceed
50 percent of the investment attributable to the eligible
taxpayer with respect to such project through such taxable
year.
``(b) Annual Limitation on Aggregate Credit Allowable.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the carbon sequestration
investment credit determined under subsection (a) for any
taxable year, when added to all such credits allowed to all
eligible taxpayers with respect to the such project for such
taxable year shall not exceed the credit dollar amount
allocated to such project under this subsection by the
implementing panel for the calendar year ending with or
within such taxable year.
``(2) Time for making allocation.--An allocation shall be
taken into account under paragraph (1) only if it is made not
later than the close of the calendar year in which the carbon
sequestration project proposal with respect to such project
is approved by the implementing panel under section 2 of the
International Carbon Conservation Act.
``(3) Aggregate credit dollar amount.--The aggregate credit
dollar amount which the implementing panel may allocate for
any calendar year is equal to $200,000,000.
``(e) Eligible Taxpayer; Implementing Panel.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) Eligible taxpayer.--A taxpayer is eligible for the
credit under this section with respect to a carbon
sequestration project if such taxpayer has not elected the
application of sections 3 and 4 of the International Carbon
Conservation Act with respect to such project.
``(2) Implementing panel.--The term `implementing panel'
means the implementing panel established under section 2 of
such Act.
``(f) Recapture of Credit In Certain Cases.--
``(1) In general.--If, at any time during the 30-year
period of a carbon sequestration project, there is a
recapture event with respect to such project, then the tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which such
event occurs shall be increased by the credit recapture
amount.
``(2) Credit recapture amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)--
``(A) In general.--The credit recapture amount is an amount
equal to the recapture percentage of all carbon sequestration
investment credits previously allowable to an eligible
taxpayer with respect to any investment in such project that
is attributable to such taxpayer.
``(B) Recapture percentage.--The recapture percentage shall
be 100 percent if the recapture event occurs during the first
10 years of the project, 66\2/3\ percent if the recapture
event occurs during the second 10 years of the project, 33\1/
3\ percent if the recapture event occurs during the third 10
years of the project, and 0 percent if the recapture event
occurs at any time after the 30th year of the project.
``(3) Recapture event.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
there is a recapture event with respect to a carbon
sequestration project if--
``(A) the eligible taxpayer violates a term or condition of
the approval of the project by the implementing panel at any
time,
``(B) the eligible taxpayer adopts a practice which the
implementing panel has specified in its approval of the
project as a practice which would tend to defeat the purposes
of the carbon sequestration program, or
``(C) the eligible taxpayer disposes of any ownership
interest arising out of its investment that the implementing
panel has determined is attributable to the project, unless
the implementing panel determines that such disposition will
not have any adverse effect on the carbon sequestration
project.
If an event which otherwise would be a recapture event is
outside the control of the eligible taxpayer, as determined
by the implementing panel, such event shall not be treated as
a recapture event with respect to such taxpayer.
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.
``(g) Disallowance of Double Benefit.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any investment in a
carbon sequestration project shall be reduced by the amount
of any credit determined under this section with respect to
such investment.
``(2) Charitable deduction disallowed.--No deduction shall
be allowed to an eligible taxpayer under section 170 with
respect to any contribution which the implementing panel
certifies pursuant to section 2 of the International Carbon
Conservation Act to the Secretary constitutes an investment
in a carbon sequestration project that is attributable to
such taxpayer.
``(h) Certification to Secretary.--The implementing panel
shall certify to the Secretary before January 31 of each year
with respect to each eligible taxpayer which has made an
investment in a carbon sequestration project--
``(1) the amount of the carbon sequestration investment
credit allowable to such taxpayer for the preceding calendar
year,
``(2) whether a recapture event occurred with respect to
such taxpayer during the preceding calendar year, and
``(3) the credit recapture amount, if any, with respect to
such taxpayer for the preceding calendar year.
``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this section,
including regulations--
``(1) which limit the credit for investments which are
directly or indirectly subsidized by other Federal benefits,
``(2) which prevent the abuse of the provisions of this
section through the use of related parties, and
``(3) which impose appropriate reporting requirements.''.
(b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 38 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``plus''
at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(14) the carbon sequestration investment credit
determined under section 45E(a).''.
(2) Limitation on carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(10) No carryback of carbon sequestration investment
credit before january 1, 2002.--No portion of the unused
business credit for any taxable year which is attributable to
the credit under section 45E may be carried back to a taxable
year ending before January 1, 2002.''.
(c) Deduction for Unused Credit.--Subsection (c) of section
196 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) the carbon sequestration investment credit determined
under section 45E(a).''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
[[Page 6067]]
``Sec. 45E. Carbon sequestration investment credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to investments made after December 31, 2001.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 766. A bill to impose notification and reporting requirements in
connection with grants of waivers of the limitation on certain
procurements of the Department of Defense that is known as the Berry
amendment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
I am introducing today be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 766
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
WAIVER OF THE BERRY AMENDMENT LIMITATION.
(a) Annual Report.--(1) After the end of each fiscal year,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
the waivers of the limitation on use of funds set forth in
section 9005 of Public Law 102-396 (popularly known as the
``Berry amendment'') that were granted under any provision of
law during that fiscal year for procurements made by the
Defense Logistics Agency for the military departments.
(2) The report for a fiscal year shall include the
following:
(A) The number of waivers.
(B) For each waiver--
(i) the reasons for the waiver;
(ii) the date of the notification of the military
department concerned under subsection (b); and
(iii) a description of the items procured pursuant to the
waiver, together with the amount of the procurement.
(C) The number of instances in which the Secretary of
Defense waived the notification requirement under subsection
(b).
(b) Notification.--(1) Not later than 14 days before
granting a waiver of the limitation referred to in subsection
(a)(1) for a procurement to be made by the Defense Logistics
Agency for a military department, the Secretary of Defense
shall transmit to the Secretary of the military department a
notification of the determination to waive the limitation.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability of
the notification requirement under paragraph (1) in any case
in which the Secretary determines that a delay of the
procurement to satisfy the requirement is not consistent with
a need to expedite the procurement in the national security
interests of the United States.
(c) System for Data Collection.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish a system for--
(1) monitoring the granting of waivers of the limitation
referred to in subsection (a)(1); and
(2) recording the waivers and the reasons for the waivers.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``waiver'', with
respect to the limitation referred to in subsection (a)(1),
means a determination authorized under section 9005 of Public
Law 102-396 that a particular procurement is covered by an
exception provided in that section.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Levin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Hollings):
S. 767. A bill to extend the Brady background checks to gun shows,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show Background
Check Act of 2001. Along with twenty of my colleagues, I am offering
this legislation to renew the process of bringing some sense to our
nation's gun laws by closing a loophole that has allowed criminals to
buy firearms at gun shows for far too long.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported to Congress last
year that gun shows are a major gun trafficking channel responsible for
more than 26,000 illegal firearms sales during an 18-month period. The
FBI and ATF tell us again and again that convicted felons, domestic
abusers, and other prohibited purchasers are taking advantage of the
gun show loophole to acquire firearms.
Two years ago, after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people
at Columbine High School with weapons purchased from a private seller
at a gun show, the United States Senate passed the Lautenberg amendment
to close the gun show loophole. The legislation I am introducing today
is identical to that Senate-passed amendment.
Under federal law, Federal Firearms Licensees are required to
maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to
check a purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System before transferring any firearm. However, a
person does not need a federal firearms license, and the Brady Act does
not apply, if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling
firearms pursuant to federal law. These nonlicensees make up one
quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at thousands of gun shows in
America each year. Consequently, felons and other prohibited persons
who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchases buy
firearms at gun shows.
My legislation incorporates recommendations made by the Department of
Justice and the Department of the Treasury in their 1999 report on gun
shows. The legislation would take several steps to make gun show
transactions safer for all Americans:
Definition of gun shows: Gun shows are defined to include any event
at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This
definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main
commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of
guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.
Gun show promoters: Gun show promoters would be required to register
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, maintain a list of
vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge
receipt of information about their legal obligations.
Background checks for all transactions: The bill requires that all
firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee. If
a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the
gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for
conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of
the transactions.
Improved firearm tracing: FFLs would be required to submit
information necessary to trace all firearms transferred at gun shows to
the ATF's National Tracing Center, including the manufacturer/importer,
model, and serial number of the firearms. However, no personal
information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to
the government. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this
information in their files. The NTC would request this information from
an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the
subject of a law enforcement trace request.
Some will say that this legislation is an attempt to end gun shows,
but the experience of states that have closed the gun show loophole
proves otherwise. California, for example, requires not only background
checks at gun shows but a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales, yet
gun shows continue to thrive there. No, we're not trying to end gun
shows. What we are trying to end is the free pass we're giving to
convicted felons when they can walk into a gun show, find a private
dealer, buy whatever weapons they want and walk out without a Brady
background check.
In overwhelming numbers, the American people believe that background
checks should be required for all gun show sales. The people of
Colorado and Oregon confirmed this last fall when they approved ballot
initiatives to close the gun show loophole. I urge my colleagues to
support the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2001 so that we can
finally close this loophole in every state and make sure that convicted
felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons do not use gun
shows to purchase firearms without a Brady background check.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
[[Page 6068]]
S. 768. A bill to amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States
Code, to clarify the method for computing certain annuities under the
Civil Service Retirement System which are based (in whole or in part)
on part-time service, and for other purposes, to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague in the
House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Moran, in introducing
legislation to correct an error in the retirement benefits calculation
for certain part-time federal employees.
In 1986, Congress passed legislation to reform the retirement system
for the federal workforce, establishing the Federal Employees
Retirement System to replace the Civil Service Retirement System.
Provisions in this legislation also revised the formula used to
determine retirement benefits for employees with full time and part
time service in the federal government. Congress did not intend this
change to impact the existing workers who remained under the Civil
Service Retirement System.
Implementation of the provision, however, was misinterpreted by the
Office of Personnel Management. Affected employees are losing hundreds,
and in some cases thousands, of dollars every year of the retirement
benefits they earned.
Many employees only became aware as they were about to retire that
they would not receive all of the benefits they were expecting. The
impacted federal workers had full-time service before 1986, and changed
to part-time service for the end of their civil service career. Often
these employees cut back their hours to care for their families, or
even delayed retirement and worked part-time to help an office during a
transition period.
The revised retirement formula calculates benefits for a federal
part-time worker based on a full-time equivalent basis which is scaled
accordingly. Benefits are based on a worker's high-three average salary
during his or her career. This could occur during an employee's part-
time service.
Civil service employees with pre-1986 full-time work and some part-
time work after 1986 do not receive the proper credit for their full-
time work, however, because full-time and part-time work are broken
into two parts. The full-time equivalent pay for the high-three years
should apply to an employees entire career. Instead, for the affected
employees, their pre-1986 full-time benefits are based on actual
salary. This two-step approach undervalues the worker's full-time
service.
The bill I am introducing today will correct this error by allowing
an employee's full-time equivalent salary for their high-three years
apply to their entire careers, including pre-1986 service.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and these
federal employees for their dedicated service by ensuring they receive
the retirement benefits they have earned.
I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 768
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMPUTATION OF CERTAIN ANNUITIES BASED ON PART-
TIME SERVICE.
Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
``(A) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply with
respect to any service performed on a part-time basis before,
on, or after April 7, 1986;
``(B) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply with
respect to all service performed on or after April 7, 1986
(whether on a part-time basis or otherwise); and
``(C) any service performed on a part-time basis before
April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a
full-time basis.''.
SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendment made by this Act shall apply only with respect to
an annuity entitlement that is based on a separation
occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Recomputation of Certain Annuities.--
(1) In general.--In the case of any individual who--
(A) before April 7, 1986, performed any service creditable
under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States
Code, and
(B) was separated from the service on or after April 7,
1986, and before the date of enactment of this Act,
any annuity under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5,
United States Code (or under chapter 84 of that title, to the
extent of any portion of such annuity which is computed under
subchapter III of such chapter 83) based on the service of
such individual shall be recomputed to take into account the
amendment made by this Act, if application therefor is made
within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Amounts to which applicable.--Any change in an annuity
resulting from a recomputation under paragraph (1) shall be
effective with respect to amounts accruing for months
beginning after the date on which application for such
recomputation is made.
(c) Notice Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Office of Personnel Management shall
take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to
inform individuals entitled to have any annuity recomputed
under subsection (b) of their entitlement to such
recomputation.
(2) Assistance.--The Office shall, on request, assist any
individual referred to in paragraph (1) in obtaining from any
department, agency, or other instrumentality of the United
States such information in the possession of such
instrumentality as may be necessary--
(A) to verify the entitlement of such individual to have an
annuity recomputed under subsection (b); or
(B) to carry out any such recomputation.
(3) Information.--Any department, agency, or other
instrumentality of the United States which possesses any
information with respect to part-time service performed by an
individual shall, at the request of the Office, furnish such
information to the Office.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 769. A bill to establish a carbon sequestration program and an
implementing panel within the Department of Commerce to enhance
international conservation, to promote the role of carbon sequestration
as a means of slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, and to reward and encourage voluntary, pro-active
environmental efforts on the issue of global climate change; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 769
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``International Carbon
Conservation Act''.
SEC. 2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Carbon Sequestration Program.--Within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the implementing panel
shall establish a carbon sequestration program to permit
project sponsors to make carbon sequestration project
proposals to the implementing panel.
(b) Implementing Panel.--There is established within the
National Institute of Standards and Technology of the
Department of Commerce an implementing panel consisting of--
(1) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology,
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture,
(3) the Secretary of State,
(4) the Secretary of Energy,
(5) the Chief of the Forest Service, and
(6) representatives of nongovernmental organizations who
have an expertise and experience in carbon sequestration
practices, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Chief of the Forest Service shall act as chairperson of
the implementing panel.
(c) Carbon Sequestration Project.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) In general.--The term ``carbon sequestration project''
means a project--
(A) which is located outside the United States,
(B) the duration of which is not less than 30 years,
(C) which is designed to increase the sequestration of
carbon, and
(D) which is accepted by the implementing panel under the
carbon sequestration program.
(2) Acceptance of project proposals.--
(A) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program,
the implementing panel shall accept a proposal for a carbon
sequestration project from a project sponsor only if--
[[Page 6069]]
(i) the proposal includes a needs assessment described in
subparagraph (B),
(ii) the proposal identifies the benefits of carbon
sequestration practices of the sponsored project under
criteria developed to evaluate such benefits under subsection
(d) and under guidelines instituted to quantify such benefits
under subsection (e) and includes an agreement by the sponsor
to carry out such practices as described in subparagraph (C),
and
(iii) the proposal includes an agreement to provide
verification of compliance with an approved project as
described in subparagraph (D) under standards established
under subsection (f).
(B) Needs assessment.--A needs assessment described in this
subparagraph is an assessment of the need for the carbon
sequestration project described in a proposal and the ability
of the project sponsor to carry out the carbon sequestration
practices related to such project. The assessment shall be
developed by the project sponsor, in cooperation with the
Agency for International Development, nongovernmental
organizations, and independent third-party verifiers.
(C) Carbon sequestration practices.--Under a carbon
sequestration project proposal, the project sponsor shall
agree to contract with other entities, including
organizations based in the country in which the sponsored
carbon sequestration project is located, to carry out carbon
sequestration practices proposed by the project sponsor which
(as determined by the implementing panel)--
(i) provide for additional carbon sequestration beyond that
which would be provided in the absence of such project, and
(ii) contribute to a positive reduction of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere through carbon sequestration over at least
a 30-year period.
(D) Verification of compliance with approved carbon
sequestration project.--Under a carbon sequestration project
proposal, the project sponsor shall agree to provide the
implementing panel with verification through a third party
that such project is sequestering carbon in accordance with
the proposal approved by the implementing panel, including an
annual audit of the project, an actual verification of the
practices at the project site every 5 years, and such random
inspections as are necessary.
(d) Criteria for Evaluating Benefits of Carbon
Sequestration Practices.--
(1) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program the
Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with other
members of the implementing panel, shall develop criteria for
prioritizing, determining the acceptability of, and
evaluating, the benefits of the carbon sequestration
practices proposed in projects for the purpose of determining
the acceptability of project proposals.
(2) Content.--The criteria shall ensure that carbon
sequestration investment credits under section 45E of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are not allocated to projects
the primary purpose of which is to grow timber for commercial
harvest or to projects which replace native ecological
systems with commercial timber plantations. Projects should
be prioritized according to--
(A) native forest preservation, especially with respect to
land which would otherwise cease to be native forest land,
(B) reforestation of former forest land where such land has
not been forested for at least 10 years,
(C) biodiversity enhancement,
(D) the prevention of greenhouse gas emissions through the
preservation of carbon storing plants and trees,
(E) soil erosion management,
(F) soil fertility restoration, and
(G) the duration of the project, including any project
under which other entities are engaged to extend the duration
of the project beyond the minimum carbon sequestration
project term.
(e) Guidelines for Quantifying Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program,
the Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with other
members of the implementing panel, shall institute guidelines
for the development of methodologies for quantifying the
amount of carbon sequestered by particular projects for the
purposes of determining the acceptability of project
proposals. These guidelines should set standards for project
sponsors with regard to--
(A) methodologies for measuring the carbon sequestered,
(B) measures to assure the duration of projects sponsored,
(C) criteria that verifies that the carbon sequestered is
additional to the sequestration which would have occurred
without the sponsored project,
(D) reasonable criteria to evaluate the extent to which the
project displaces activity that causes deforestation in
another location, and
(E) the extent to which the project promotes sustainable
development in a project area, particularly with regard to
protecting the traditional land tenure of indigenous people.
(2) Basis.--In developing the guidelines, the Chief of the
Forest Service shall--
(A) consult with land grant universities and entities which
specialize in carbon storage verification and measurement,
and
(B) use information reported to the Secretary of Energy
from projects carried out under the voluntary reporting
program of the Energy Information Administration under
section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13385).
(f) Verification Standards.--Under the carbon sequestration
program, the Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, in consultation with other members of the
implementing panel and the National Science Foundation, shall
establish verification standards for purposes of subsection
(c)(2)(D).
(g) Program Reporting.--The Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall develop forms to monitor
carbon sequestration improvements made as a result of the
program established under this section and the implementing
panel shall use such forms to report to the Administrator
on--
(1) carbon sequestration improvements made as a result of
the program,
(2) carbon sequestration practices of project sponsors
enrolled in the program, and
(3) compliance with the terms of the implementing panel's
approval of projects.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
the program established under subsection (a).
SEC. 3. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCING.
An owner or operator of property that is located outside of
the United States and that is used in a carbon sequestration
project approved by the implementing panel under section 2
may enter into a contract for an extension of credit from the
Export-Import Bank of the United States of up to 75 percent
of the cost of carrying out the carbon sequestration
practices specified in the carbon sequestration project
proposal to the extent that the Export-Import Bank determines
that the cost sharing is appropriate, in the public interest,
and otherwise meets the requirements of the Export-Import
Bank Act of 1945.
SEC. 4. EQUITY INVESTMENT INSURANCE.
An owner or operator of property that is located outside of
the United States and that is used in a carbon sequestration
project approved by the implementing panel under section 2
may enter into a contract for investment insurance issued by
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation pursuant to
section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2194) if the Corporation determines that issuance of the
insurance is consistent with the provisions of such section
234.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 770. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social security Act
to allow up to 24 months of vocational educational training to be
counted as a work activity under the temporary assistance to needy
families program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Jeffords, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee in introducing legislation that seeks to add an important
measure of flexibility to a provision of the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program, TANF, under the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The legislation we are
introducing increases from 12 to 24 months the limit on the amount of
vocational education training that a state can count towards meeting
its work participation rate.
Under the pre-1996 Aid to Families with Dependent Children program,
recipients could participate in post-secondary vocational training or
community college programs for up to 24 months. While I support the new
law's emphasis on moving welfare recipients more quickly into jobs, I
am troubled by the law's restriction on post-secondary education
training, limiting it to 12 months. One year of vocational education is
an approved work activity, the second year of post-secondary education
study is not.
The limitation on post-secondary education training raises a number
of concerns, not the least of which is whether individuals may be
forced into low-paying, short-term employment that will lead them back
onto public assistance because they are unable to support themselves or
their families. According to recent studies, this is exactly what has
happened in far too many cases. According to a March 13, 2001 report of
the Congressional Research Service, which is based on research
published in the 2000 Edition of
[[Page 6070]]
the House Committee on Ways and Means Green Book, although the majority
of recipients who have left the welfare rolls left because they became
employed, most remained poor. The research also revealed that the
average hourly wage for these former welfare recipients ranged from
$5.50 to $8.80 per hour.
Study after study indicates that short-term training programs raise
the income of workers only marginally, while completion of at least a
two-year associate degree has the potential of breaking the cycle of
poverty for welfare recipients. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
the median earnings of adults with an associate degree are 30 percent
higher than adults who have not achieved such a degree.
A majority of the members of the Senate has previously cast their
vote in favor of making 24 months of post-secondary education a
permissible work activity under TANF The Levin-Jeffords amendment to
the 1997 Reconciliation bill, permitting up to 24 months of post-
secondary education, received 55 votes--falling five votes short of the
required procedural vote of 60. The amendment had the support of the
National Governors Association, NGA, and NGA's support continues with
the legislation Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today. I would
also like to make note of Senator Wellstone's efforts on this issue. He
subsequently proposed several modifications to TANF, including raising
the 12 month limit to 24 months, in an amendment to the 1998 Higher
Education reauthorization bill. The amendment passed the Senate but was
deleted during conference negotiations.
It is my hope that the Senate will again act favorably and
expeditiously on this legislation and that the House will support this
much-needed State flexibility. We must do what is necessary to achieve
TANF's intended goal of getting families permanently off of welfare and
onto self-sufficiency.
In closing, I would like to present to my colleagues some examples of
the earnings that can be made upon completion of two years of training
in a structured vocational or community college program. The following
are jobs that an individual could prepare for in a two-year community
college program, including the average starting salary for each
nationwide.
Average Starting Salary Nationwide
Dental Hygiene..................................................$31,750
Physical Therapy Assistant.......................................28,782
Computer Programing..............................................28,000
Occupational Therapy Assistant...................................27,624
Respiratory Therapy..............................................26,877
Computer Assisted Design.........................................26,890
Drafting and Design..............................................24,800
Electronic Technology............................................24,255
Culinary Arts....................................................22,500
Early Childhood Development Assistant............................18,000
Again, I urge my colleagues to act with haste. The modification
embodied in this legislation can give the states the flexibility they
need to help improve the economic status of families across America.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
S.J. Res. 13. A joint resolution conferring honorary citizenship of
the United States on Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as
the Marquis de Lafayette; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will
make General Lafayette an honorary United States Citizen. This honor
has been bestowed on four other individuals including Winston Churchill
and Mother Teresa.
Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette
(1757-1834) was born in France and was a wealthy French youth blessed
with every advantage offered by Europe's aristocracy. Although he was
wealthy and among France's aristocracy, he risked his wealth and status
to aid the Americans in their revolution against Great Britain.
At the age of 19, determined to dedicate himself to the cause of our
liberty, he bought a ship and sailed to the American colonies to
volunteer his services. In early summer of 1777, soon after his
arrival, Congress voted him the rank and commission of Major General.
Just two months later, Lafayette was wounded at the battle of
Brandywine, forever endearing himself to the American soldiers.
Throughout the American Revolution, Lafayette acted as a liaison
between France and the American colonies. He urged influential policy
makers to have France make the decisive military, naval and financial
commitment to the colonists. His tireless efforts, both as a liaison
and a general, aided America in her time of need.
As a general, his military tactics lured British General Cornwallis
and his army to Yorktown, Virginia. The American Army, led by General
Washington, along with French forces led by Rochambeau, came south and
trapped Cornwallis and his troops at Yorktown. As a result, the British
were forced to surrender.
Lafayette's services to America extended beyond the battlefront. He
worked diligently as an advisor, helping win concessions from Britain
during the Treaty negotiations. At Versailles, when negotiating with
the French government, our representatives Franklin and Jefferson found
him invaluable. Moreover, his impartial friendship was extended to the
first eight U.S. presidents.
Despite his commitment to our Country, America did not recognize his
United States' citizenship in his time of need. While crossing the
French border into the Netherlands to escape arrest from the
Revolutionary French Government, the Austrians captured and arrested
General Lafayette. Despite his claim that he was an American citizen
being illegally detained, the Austrians disagreed. General Lafayette
appealed to American ministers for help, but his calls for intervention
were not answered. Lafayette clearly felt that he was an America
citizen, and technically he may have been under the blanket
naturalization granted all citizens of each state when the Constitution
was ratified. The U.S. government, however, failed to acknowledge his
claim, and he spent the next five years in prison.
Although General Lafayette was made an honorary citizen by Virginia
and Maryland before the United States Constitution was ratified, the
United States failed to recognize his citizenship while he was
imprisoned. I feel that we must set the record straight and honor
General Lafayette for his commitment to the United States by making him
an honorary United States citizen. I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. J. Res. 13
Whereas the United States has conferred honorary
citizenship on four other occasions in more than 200 years of
its independence, and honorary citizenship is and should
remain an extraordinary honor not lightly conferred nor
frequently granted;
Whereas Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as the
Marquis de Lafayette or General Lafayette, voluntarily put
forth his own money and risked his life for the freedom of
Americans;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette, by an Act of Congress,
was voted to the rank of Major General;
Whereas, during the Revolutionary War, General Lafayette
was wounded at the Battle of Brandywine, demonstrating
bravery that forever endeared him to the American soldiers;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette secured the help of France
to aid the United States' colonists against Great Britain;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was conferred the honor of
honorary citizenship by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
State of Maryland;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was the first foreign
dignitary to address Congress, which honor was accorded him
upon his return to the United States in 1824;
Whereas, upon his death, both the House of Representatives
and the Senate draped their chambers in black as a
demonstration of respect and gratitude for his contribution
to the independence of the United States;
Whereas an American flag has flown over his grave in France
since his death and has not been removed, even while France
occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II; and
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette gave aid to the United
States in time need and is forever a symbol of freedom: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in
[[Page 6071]]
Congress assembled, That Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier,
also known as the Marquis de Lafayette, is proclaimed to be
an honorary citizen of the United States of America.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 72--DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS ``NATIONAL
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH''
Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Reid, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Kennedy, and Mr. Bayh) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. Res. 72
Whereas non-stranger and stranger rape and sexual assault
affects women, children, and men of all racial, cultural, and
economic backgrounds;
Whereas women, children, and men suffer multiple types of
sexual violence;
Whereas the Department of Justice reports that a sexual
assault occurs every 90 seconds;
Whereas it is estimated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
that over 70 percent of rapes are never reported to the
police;
Whereas in addition to the immediate physical and emotional
costs, sexual assault may also have associated consequences
of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, major
depression, homelessness, eating disorders, and suicide;
Whereas it is important to recognize the compassion and
dedication of the individuals who provide services to
survivors and work to increase the public understanding of
this significant problem;
Whereas State coalitions and local rape crisis centers
across the Nation are committed to increasing public
awareness of sexual violence and its prevalence and to
eliminating it through education;
Whereas important partnerships have been formed among
criminal and juvenile justice agencies, allied professionals,
and victim services;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have
identified sexual assault as a significant, costly, and
preventable health issue; and
Whereas the United States Government has expressed a
commitment to eliminating sexual violence in society with
various legislative actions and appropriations, including the
Violence Against Women Act, Grants to Combat Violence Against
Women on Campus, and through projects of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the month of April 2001, as ``National
Sexual Assault Awareness Month'';
(2) encourages individual and collective efforts that
reflect the vision of a Nation where no sexual assault victim
goes un-served or ever feels there is no path to justice and
where citizens work toward eliminating all forms of sexual
violence; and
(3) requests that the President of the United States issue
a proclamation calling on the people of the United States and
interested groups to observe ``National Sexual Assault
Awareness Month'' with appropriate ceremonies, activities,
and programs to reflect the commitment to eliminating sexual
violence from society and to acknowledge the work of
organizations and individuals against sexual violence.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 33--SUPPORTING A NATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOLS
WEEK
Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
S. Con. Res. 33
Whereas charter schools are public schools authorized by a
designated public body and operating on the principles of
accountability, parent flexibility, choice, and autonomy;
Whereas in exchange for the flexibility and autonomy given
to charter schools, they are held accountable by their
sponsors for improving student achievement and for their
financial and other operations;
Whereas 36 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have passed laws authorizing
charter schools;
Whereas 35 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will have received more than
$500,000,000 in grants from the Federal Government by the end
of the current fiscal year for planning, startup, and
implementation of charter schools since their authorization
in 1994 under part C of title X of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8061 et seq.);
Whereas 34 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are serving approximately 550,000
students in more than 2,150 charter schools during the 2000
to 2001 school year;
Whereas charter schools can be vehicles both for improving
student achievement for students who attend them and for
stimulating change and improvement in all public schools and
benefiting all public school students;
Whereas charter schools in many States serve significant
numbers of low income, minority, and disabled students;
Whereas the Charter Schools Expansion Act of 1998 (Public
Law 105-278) amended the Federal grant program for charter
schools authorized by part C of title X of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8061 et seq.) to
strengthen accountability provisions at the Federal, State,
and local levels to ensure that charter public schools are of
high quality and are truly accountable to the public;
Whereas 7 of 10 charter schools report having a waiting
list;
Whereas students in charter schools nationwide have similar
demographic characteristics as students in all public
schools;
Whereas charter schools have enjoyed broad bipartisan
support from the Administration, Congress, State governors
and legislatures, educators, and parents across the Nation;
and
Whereas charter schools are centers of reform and serve as
models of how to educate children as effectively as possible:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) acknowledges and commends the charter school movement
for its contribution to improving student achievement and our
Nation's public school system;
(2) designates the period beginning on April 30, 2001, and
ending on May 4, 2001, as ``National Charter Schools Week'';
and
(3) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States to observe the
week by conducting appropriate programs, ceremonies, and
activities to demonstrate support for charter schools in
communities throughout the Nation.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 26, 2001 at 9:30 a.m.
in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington,
D.C.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider national energy policy
with respect to fuel specifications and infrastructure constraints and
their impacts on energy supply and price.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural resources, United
States Senate, SH-212 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20510-6150.
For further information, please call Trici Heninger or Bryan Hannegan
at (202) 224-4971.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 2:20 p.m., in executive
session to consider certain pending nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on armed services
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 3:30 p.m., in open session to
consider the nominations of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
[[Page 6072]]
to be Under Secretary of Defense, comptroller; Mr. Charles S. Abell to
be Assistant Secretary of Defense for force management policy; and Ms.
Victoria Clarke to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, to conduct
a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Grant D. Aldonas, of Virginia, to be
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade; Mr. Kenneth I.
Juster, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce
for Export Administration; Ms. Maria Cino, of Virginia, to be Assistant
Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and
Foreign Commercial Service; and Mr. Robert Glenn Hubbard, of New York,
to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, to conduct
a mark-up of S. 206, ``The Public Utility Holding Company Act.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday. April 24, 2001 to hear testimony on the Tax Code
Complexity, New Hope for Fresh Solutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on small business
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Protecting Small Business Rights:
SBREFA on Its 5th Anniversary'' on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, beginning
at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Committee and Tourism
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Committee and Tourism of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to
meet on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 10 a.m. on Booster Seats and the
Forgotten Child: Closing a Safety Gap.
The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday,
April 24, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. on NASA's Aeronautics Program.
The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Personnel
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April
24, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the
recruiting initiatives of the Department of Defense and the Military
Services and to receive an update on the status of recruiting and
retention goals.
The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicky Yuen
and Jay Barth, both fellows in my office, be granted privileges of the
floor.-
The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
REPRINTING OF ``WOMEN IN CONGRESS, 1917-1990''
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 66, and the
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 66) authorizing the
printing of a revised and updated version of the House
document entitled ``Women in Congress, 1917-1990.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the House
concurrent resolution.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 66) was agreed to.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2001
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30
a.m. on Wednesday, April 25. I further ask consent that on Wednesday,
immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the
two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate
begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators speaking
for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator
Durbin or his designee from 9:30 to 10:15 a.m.; and Senator Thomas or
his designee from 10:15 to 11 a.m.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, it is hoped that
the Senate can begin consideration of S. 1, the education bill, during
tomorrow's session. An agreement on the bill is being negotiated, and
we are hoping to begin consideration shortly after an agreement is
reached. All Senators are encouraged to come to the floor tomorrow to
participate in that debate. Votes are therefore possible during
tomorrow's session.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. VOINOVICH. If there is no further business to come before the
Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:05 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
April 24, 2001
[[Page 6073]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, April 24, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
The Reverend Michael J. Cronin, student, the Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C., and priest, Diocese of Winona, Minnesota,
offered the following prayer:
Almighty and eternal God, in Your great mercy, You have revealed Your
glory to all the nations. Let the light of Your divine wisdom direct
the deliberations of Congress and shine forth in all these proceedings
and laws framed for our government. May those who serve in this body be
enabled by Your powerful protection to discharge their duties with
honesty and integrity. May they seek to preserve peace, promote
national happiness, and continue to bring us the blessings of liberty
and equality. May all people in this great land be preserved in union
and peace and, after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted
to those which are eternal. We pray to You, who are Lord and God,
forever and ever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. TRAFICANT led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Monahan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed a bill and concurrent resolutions
of the following titles in which the concurrence of the House is
requested:
S. 700. An act to establish a Federal interagency task
force for the purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the
outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known
as ``mad cow disease'') and foot-and-mouth disease in the
United States.
S. Con. Res. 7. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the United States should establish an
international education policy to further national security,
foreign policy, and economic competitiveness, promote mutual
understanding and cooperation among nations, and for other
purposes.
S. Con. Res. 23. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress with respect to the involvement of the Government
of Libya in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and
for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed with amendments
in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a concurrent
resolution of the House of the following title:
H. Con. Res. 83. Concurrent resolution establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for the
fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting
forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of the fiscal
years 2003 through 2011.
The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment
to the resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) ``Concurrent resolution
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011,'' requests
a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon, and appoints
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mrs. Murray, to be the
conferees on the part of the Senate.
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 100-696, the
Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, appoints the Senator
from Ohio (Mr. DeWine) as a member of the United States Capitol
Preservation Commission.
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 94-118, the
Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, reappoints the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) to the Japan-United States Friendship
Commission.
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 94-118, the
Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, reappoints the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) to the Japan-United States
Friendship Commission.
____________________
WELCOME TO REVEREND MICHAEL CRONIN
(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to welcome the Reverend
Michael Cronin today as our guest chaplain. Father Cronin was born and
raised in Rochester, Minnesota, and graduated in 1988 from St. John's
University in Collegeville. After graduation, Father Cronin came to
Washington, D.C. to work as a staff assistant to my predecessor,
Congressman Tim Penny.
In 1990, Father Cronin returned to Minnesota to begin his studies for
the priesthood. Father Cronin was ordained in June of 1995 and went on
to serve as assistant pastor at his home parish, the Church of St. Pius
X in Rochester.
During this time, he also served as a chaplain and instructor at
Lourdes High School. In 1998, Father Cronin was assigned to the
Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Winona, Minnesota, where he also
served as chaplain at the Newman Center of Winona State University.
Last year, Father Cronin began full-time studies in the Department of
Canon Law at the Catholic University of America here in Washington,
D.C. Upon completion, he hopes to return to the Diocese of Winona.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to thank Father Cronin for serving as our
guest chaplain today and for his service to the young people of the
First District of Minnesota.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns) laid before the House the
following communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 9, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted to
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on April 9, 2001 at 9:43
a.m.
That the Senate PASSED without amendment H. Con. Res. 43.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Martha Morrison,
Deputy Clerk of the House.
____________________
APPOINTMENT AS MEMBERS TO UNITED STATES-CHINA SECURITY REVIEW
COMMISSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 1238(b) of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization
[[Page 6074]]
Act for fiscal year 2001 (PL 106-398) and the order of the House of
Wednesday, April 4, 2001, the Speaker on Thursday, April 5, 2001,
appointed the following members on the part of the House to the United
States-China Security Review Commission:
Mr. Stephen D. Bryen, Maryland;
Ms. June Teufel Dreyer, Florida; and
Mr. James R. Lilley, Maryland.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF MEMBER OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. LEACH, MEMBER
OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Jill Rohret, district scheduler to the Honorable
James A. Leach, Member of Congress:
Congress of the United States,
April 5, 2001.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a subpoena for testimony issued
by the District Court for Iowa, Johnson County.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that it is consistent with the precedents and
privileges of the House to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Jill Rohret,
District Scheduler.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF MEMBER OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. LEACH, MEMBER
OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Rachel Schrepferman, staff assistant to the
Honorable James A. Leach, Member of Congress:
Congress of the United States,
April 6, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a subpoena for testimony issued
by the District Court for Iowa, Johnson County.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that it is consistent with the precedents and
privileges of the House to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Rachel Schrepferman,
Staff Assistant.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Brad Sherman, Member of Congress:
Brad Sherman,
24th District, California, April 18, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a civil subpoena for documents
issued by the Municipal Court for Los Angeles County,
California.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that it is consistent with the precedents and
privileges of the House to comply with the subpoena.
Sincerely,
Brad Sherman,
Member of Congress.
____________________
MILLIONAIRE'S TRIP TO SPACE STATION IS LATEST EXAMPLE OF RUSSIANS
TAKING NASA'S MANAGEMENT TO CLEANERS
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today disappointed by the news
that NASA has again acquiesced to inappropriate Russian demands to the
Space Station program. Russia will be sending Dennis Tito, a 60-year-
old American millionaire, as one of its contributions to this week's
mission to the Space Station.
What unique characteristics does Mr. Tito possess that earned his
place on this mission? Cold hard cash. $20 million of it from Mr. Tito
to the Russians is all it took for a rocket-powered trip to the Space
Station. Unfortunately, this partnership based on a core scientific
mission apparently is now the next Club Med for those able to pony up
millions of dollars to the Russian Government.
So how is it that the Russians, whose Station nonperformance cost the
U.S. taxpayers at least 2 years' delay and over $5 billion in cost
overruns, can brazenly increase the safety risk of the entire mission?
They can because NASA's management did not provide the necessary
safeguards earlier in this so-called partnership. NASA's forced
acquiescence to Russia regarding Mr. Tito is just the latest example of
the Russians taking NASA's management to the cleaners.
____________________
AMERICA HAS BEEN BETRAYED BY JANET RENO AND FATCATS AT TOP, AND THERE
HAS NOT EVEN BEEN AN INVESTIGATION
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, why does China really need our spy plane?
Think about it. John Huang and James Riady and the Lippo Group, they
already bought and sold all the secrets. What they did not buy and spy,
the former administration gave it to them outright.
That is right. Let us tell it like it is. I believe America has been
betrayed by Janet Reno and fatcats at the top, and there has not even
been an investigation. Beam me up. If there is one good thing about all
this, China is not going to learn anything because most of the
equipment probably in that spy plane was made in China like everything
else.
I yield back the fact that Congress should rescind and cancel
permanent trade relations with China until China looks Uncle Sam in the
eye and starts to get truthful.
____________________
FURNITURE MARKET FACTS
(Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, High Point, North Carolina, is known far and
wide as the furniture capital of the world. High Point is hosting this
week the largest wholesale home furnishing show in the world, where
approximately 80,000 industry professionals have come from 50 States
and 110 countries to buy, sell, and discuss furniture.
The market was established in 1921 when 149 American companies
organized their own show at a location central to the country's leading
furniture manufacturers, and that is High Point, North Carolina.
We extend best wishes to those at High Point this week for a
successful market and extend furthermore a cordial welcome for all to
return to High Point in the fall, in October specifically, for the fall
market.
____________________
AMERICA NEEDS A REAL ENERGY POLICY
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all my colleagues
back to Washington, D.C. It is obvious that spring is here and that
summer is just around the corner; and soon no doubt air conditioners
will be going full force and the energy crisis that has gripped the
West will only get worse.
Nevadans are well aware of the energy crisis which has overcome one
of our neighbors, California. First there were rolling blackouts, now
massive rate hikes, up to 46 percent for some 10 million homes and
businesses.
As Californians work to solve its energy problems, this Congress must
address the energy crisis looming over our entire Nation. For too long
the U.S. has operated without a responsible energy policy, and now
Americans are beginning to pay the price. We need a responsible and
reliable energy policy.
[[Page 6075]]
Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century we expect the lights
to go on and the air conditioning to work without fail. We must address
the rolling blackouts, rate hikes, and consumer aggravation; and we
must establish a real energy policy that meets the needs of modern
America.
____________________
TUBERCULOSIS IS SPREADING RAPIDLY THROUGH THE DEVELOPING WORLD
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the threat of tuberculosis is
spreading rapidly throughout the developing world, and ultimately in
this country.
TB is the greatest infectious killer of adults worldwide. More than
one-third of African AIDS victims actually end up, in the end, dying
from tuberculosis. 1,100 people a day are dying from tuberculosis in
India. It kills 2 million people worldwide per year, one person every
15 seconds.
We have a very small window of opportunity, during which stopping TB
would be very cost effective.
{time} 1415
In the developing world, the cost can be as little as $20; $20 can
save generally a pretty young life. If we wait or go too slowly, more
drug-resistant TB will emerge. It costs billions to control with no
guarantee of success. Drug-resistant TB is at least 100 times more
expensive in developing countries, and is 100 times more expensive in
the United States to cure than nondrug-resistant TB.
Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to combat TB here and
abroad. We have an opportunity to save millions of lives now and
prevent millions of needless deaths, not just overseas, but ultimately
in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider joining several dozen
of us as cosponsors in our fight to eliminate tuberculosis.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 641
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII, I ask
unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 641.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
announces that he will postpone further proceedings today on each
motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and
nays are ordered, or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of
rule XX.
Any record votes on postponed questions will be taken after debate
has concluded on all motions to suspend the rules, but not before 6
p.m. today.
____________________
CONCERNING PARTICIPATION OF TAIWAN IN WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 428) concerning the participation of Taiwan in the World Health
Organization, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 428
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONCERNING THE PARTICIPATION OF TAIWAN IN THE
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO).
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Good health is a basic right for every citizen of the
world and access to the highest standards of health
information and services is necessary to help guarantee this
right.
(2) Direct and unobstructed participation in international
health cooperation forums and programs is therefore crucial
for all parts of the world, especially with today's greater
potential for the cross-border spread of various infectious
diseases such as AIDS.
(3) Taiwan's population of 23,500,000 people is larger than
that of \3/4\ of the member states already in the World
Health Organization (WHO).
(4) Taiwan's achievements in the field of health are
substantial, including one of the highest life expectancy
levels in Asia, maternal and infant mortality rates
comparable to those of western countries, the eradication of
such infectious diseases as cholera, smallpox, and the
plague, and the first to be rid of polio and to provide
children with free hepatitis B vaccinations.
(5) The United States Centers for Disease Control and its
Taiwan counterpart agencies have enjoyed close collaboration
on a wide range of public health issues.
(6) In recent years Taiwan has expressed a willingness to
assist financially and technically in international aid and
health activities supported by the WHO.
(7) On January 14, 2001, an earthquake, registering between
7.6 and 7.9 on the Richter scale, struck El Salvador. In
response, the Taiwanese government sent 2 rescue teams,
consisting of 90 individuals specializing in firefighting,
medicine, and civil engineering. The Taiwanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs also donated $200,000 in relief aid to the
Salvadoran Government.
(8) The World Health Assembly has allowed observers to
participate in the activities of the organization, including
the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974, the Order of
Malta, and the Holy See in the early 1950's.
(9) The United States, in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review,
declared its intention to support Taiwan's participation in
appropriate international organizations.
(10) Public Law 106-137 required the Secretary of State to
submit a report to the Congress on efforts by the executive
branch to support Taiwan's participation in international
organizations, in particular the WHO.
(11) In light of all the benefits that Taiwan's
participation in the WHO can bring to the state of health not
only in Taiwan, but also regionally and globally, Taiwan and
its 23,500,000 people should have appropriate and meaningful
participation in the WHO.
(b) Plan.--The Secretary of State shall initiate a United
States plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan
at the annual week-long summit of the World Health Assembly
in May 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland, and shall instruct the
United States delegation to Geneva to implement that plan.
(c) Report.--Not later than 14 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a
written report to the Congress in unclassified form
containing the plan required under subsection (b).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation which would require
the administration to initiate a plan to endorse and obtain observer
status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization during the May 2001
World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) for initiating this resolution. I would like to stress that
nothing in this bill implies a change in this country's one China
policy, which has been based for over 30 years on three communiques and
the Taiwan Relations Act; but care should be taken not to arbitrarily
exclude the 23 million people of Taiwan from appropriate economic and
humanitarian venues.
This legislation recommends a symbolic step underscoring that where
sovereignty is not in question, Taiwan ought to be brought into as many
international organizations as possible. It already is a member of the
Asian Development Bank, as well as APEC. In this context, WHO is a
constructive and thoughtful avenue for international participation by
the government and people of Taiwan.
Mr. Speaker, disease and national disasters know no borders. Indeed,
arguably the greatest international issue in the world today may be
disease control, whether we are discussing the issue of HIV/AIDS, TB or
other communicable diseases.
What the WHO issue symbolizes is a people-oriented concern for
control of disease. Taiwan should not be excluded from such concern,
and in fact has stepped forward to provide, in a number of instances,
assistance and relief in other parts of the world, such as the recent
earthquake circumstance in El Salvador.
[[Page 6076]]
Let me say this is a very modest step. It is a symbolic step, and it
is a step towards achievement of observer status in a very appropriate
humanitarian international organization. Other groups, such as the PLO
and the Knights of Malta, have observer status at the World Health
Assembly, and it would be very appropriate that Taiwan should accede to
the same type of status.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for yielding
me this time and for his leadership and assistance on this issue.
On May 20 of last year, Chen Shui-bian was sworn in as the President
of Taiwan. This was a historic event, the first major transfer of power
from one political party to a rival political party in Chinese or
Taiwanese history. Mature democracies like ours take such political
shifts for granted, but the peaceful exchange of power in many regions
of the world is a rare legacy. Taiwan now shares in it.
Taiwan has evolved into a stable, prosperous nation governed by the
rule of law. Taiwan's 40-year journey toward democracy is a success
story, one which we should celebrate, one which we should acknowledge,
and we should reward that process.
Mr. Speaker, to that end I introduced H.R. 428 requiring the State
Department to initiate a plan to endorse and obtain observer status for
Taiwan in this year's World Health Assembly. Ninety-two colleagues have
joined in cosponsoring this bill. Fostering Taiwan's participation in
the World Health Assembly is a modest step, but a meaningful one.
Observer status in the World Health Organization does not require
statehood. As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) said, the Knights of
Malta, the Palestinian Liberal Organization, the Vatican, and Rotary
International all share observer status at the WHO.
Mr. Speaker, passing this bill will be a significant victory for
every Taiwanese citizen, and for every American who cares about human
rights. Children and families suffer from the effects of inadequate
health care, whether they live in Washington or Geneva or Taipei or
Beijing. With the high frequency of international travel and the
increase in international trade, the risk of transmitting infectious
diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis and AIDS within and across
national borders is greater than ever.
Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago Taiwan suffered an outbreak of enterovirus
71, a potentially fatal disease that causes severe inflammation of
muscles surrounding the brain, heart and spinal cord. Infants and
children are particularly vulnerable to this highly contagious virus.
Unfortunately, the Taiwanese doctors treating this virus did not have
access to the medical resources because they do not have observer
status at WHO. By the time the outbreak was under control, 70 Taiwanese
children had died.
Mr. Speaker, had Taiwan been permitted to draw on WHO expertise,
these children might still be alive. The fact that Taiwan remains
handicapped in its effort to combat global illness is a tragedy. The
fact that Taiwan remains handicapped in its efforts to save children is
a crime, in some sense, in which we are all implicated. Our
government's tacit support for the status quo, our unwillingness to
fight for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization is
not only shortsighted, it is unjustifiable.
Infectious diseases do not respect politically driven distinctions or
politically drawn national borders. Infectious diseases travel. If
there is TB in Taiwan, there will more likely be TB in the United
States. If there is AIDS in South Africa, there will be, inevitably be,
AIDS in Western Europe. Global illnesses are just that: Global. No
country is immune when one country faces a health crisis.
This week, the administration decided to sell four KIDD Class
destroyers to Taiwan, despite threats from China. If our commitment to
Taiwan is strong enough to justify supporting its military defense, it
is certainly strong enough to justify supporting access to global
health resources for Taiwan's 23.5 million people.
Mr. Speaker, Taiwan is a country with a strong medical community.
They have good scientific research, have a good public health
community; and with their participation in WHO, they will contribute to
the WHO as WHO information contributes to Taiwan.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the strong support that H.R. 428 has
received from both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to the bill's
passage today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who is a physician and has practiced
medicine around the world.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and agree with
the intent of the sponsors in bringing it forward today.
As a family doctor who has worked in medicine in several different
nations, including Africa and Asia, I know that health problems and
disease do not wait for political divisions to be solved or for
political problems to be overcome. Ten days ago during this recess, I
visited Sierra Leone and Guinea. I had worked in Sierra Leone for 6
months in 1983 and 1984. For the last 10 years, there has been a civil
war going on in Sierra Leone which is now going across the border into
Guinea. I was helicoptered to the site of the hospital I worked at 10
years ago. The hospital had been burned to the ground several years ago
by the rebels. Some of the villagers that were there told me that there
were a number of people killed by the RUF, this rebel force, when they
destroyed the hospital.
Mr. Speaker, why am I bringing up this issue on this resolution with
Taiwan; because the rebels in Sierra Leone have been supported by
Charles Taylor, the leader of Liberia. And Taiwan, unfortunately,
contrary to every nation in the world, has been developing closer ties
over this last decade with Charles Taylor in Liberia. The Taiwanese
government has been very clear it is because Charles Taylor has
expressed support for Taiwan in their efforts to be included in the
United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, while the United States has been supportive of Taiwan, I
hope that the government of Taiwan will be sensitive to the
international community's efforts to end support for these rebels in
Sierra Leone. From press reports, Taiwanese government officials have
been quoted as praising Charles Taylor for promoting peace and dialogue
in West Africa. Charles Taylor has not been promoting peace and
dialogue, he has been promoting violence and a brutal civil war; and I
encourage our friends in Taiwan to be a part of the international
community, just like they want to be a part of the WHO and end their
developing relationship with Charles Taylor.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) who has fought for justice around the world.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to
actually commend all of those who are sponsors of this bill. As a
matter of fact, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and others have
understood the tremendous developments that are taking place in Taiwan.
Mr. Speaker, I recently had the good fortune to be in Taiwan and meet
with health officials, and they have developed serious movement towards
high quality health care and health services. As a matter of fact,
there is much that other countries could, in fact, learn from what they
have been able to do; and so I would join with those who urge that they
be provided opportunity to enter into the dialogue at the World Health
Organization in all of its actions and interactions so that not only
will they benefit, but so that the rest of the world can benefit from
what they have learned and what they are doing.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation
before us, H.R.
[[Page 6077]]
428, which calls for Taiwan's participation in the World Health
Organization (WHO). To facilitate this important goal, the measure
requires the Secretary of State to undertake efforts to endorse and
obtain observer status for Taiwan at next month's summit meeting in
Geneva of the World Health Assembly, and for the Secretary to submit
the plan of action to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the author of the legislation, the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, for his
leadership on this issue. I further commend the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Hyde, the Chairman of the House International Relations
Committee, and the Committee's Ranking Democrat, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lantos, for bringing this matter to the floor. I am
proud to join my colleagues as a co-sponsor of this bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization (WHO) is the preeminent
international health organization on the planet. In its charter, the
WHO sets forth the crucial objective of attaining the highest possible
level of health for all people, yet today the 23 million citizens of
Taiwan are still denied appropriate and meaningful participation in the
international health forums and programs conducted by the WHO. This is
simply wrong and inexcusable, Mr. Speaker, and Congress has spoken out
in the past that this should be corrected.
Access to the World Health Organization ensures that the highest
standards of health information and services are provided, facilitating
the eradication of disease and improvement of public health worldwide.
The work of the WHO is particularly crucial today given the tremendous
volume of international travel, which has heightened the transmission
of communicable diseases between borders.
With over 190 participants in the World Health Organization, it is a
travesty that Taiwan is not permitted to receive WHO benefits,
especially when you consider Taiwan's 23 million citizens outnumber the
population of three-fourths of the WHO's member states. This lack of
access to WHO protections has caused the good people of Taiwan to
suffer needlessly, such as in 1998 when a deadly, yet preventable,
virus killed 70 Taiwanese children and infected more than 1,100 others.
Mr. Speaker, there is no good nor valid reason why Taiwan should be
denied observer status with the World Health Organization. As a strong
democracy and one of the world's most robust economies, Taiwan
rightfully should participate in the health services and medical
protections offered by the WHO. Conversely, the WHO stands to benefit
significantly from the financial and technological contributions that
Taiwan has offered many times in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this worthy and
important legislation.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the initiative
by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown, concerning Taiwan's
participation in the World Health Organization. I comment our
Distinguished Chairman Mr. Hyde and our ranking Minority Member, Mr.
Lantos and the Subcommittee Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of
the International Operations and Human Rights and East Asia and the
Pacific for crafting and bringing this resolution to the Floor at this
time.
As Secretary Powell noted in testimony before our Committee, there
should be ways for Taiwan to enjoy the full benefits of participation
in international organizations without being a member. H.R. 428 only
calls for the Secretary of State to initiate a U.S. plan to endorse and
obtain observer status at the World Health Organization (WHO) for
Taiwan.
In recent years Taiwan has expressed a willingness to assist
financially and technically in international aid and health activities
supported by the WHO, but has not been able to render such assistance
because Taiwan is not a member of the WHO.
The WHO has allowed observers to participate in the activities of the
organization, including the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the
Knights of Malta, and the Vatican.
Along with many of my colleagues, I am extremely disappointed that
Taiwan is not a full member of the UN and all international
organizations that its democratically led government wishes to join.
Although this resolution does not absolutely address this concern it is
nevertheless a first step in addressing the problem that confronts
Taiwan.
Accordingly I strongly support H.R. 428.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 428, a
bill concerning Taiwan and the World Health Organization (WHO), and
commend Representative Brown for his work on this issue. H.R. 428 would
recognize that Taiwan and its 21 million people deserve an appropriate
role in the WHO.
There are three things the bill seeks to promote. First, H.R. 428
puts the U.S. Congress on record, again, as strongly supporting
Taiwan's request to play a more active role in international
organizations. This support reflects the results of the 1994 Taiwan
Policy Review conducted by the Clinton Administration which declared
its intention to support Taiwan's participation in international
organizations and to make every effort to make sure that this important
goal is accomplished.
Second, this legislation will move Taiwan toward membership in the
WHO. Such membership could benefit Taiwan tremendously. For example, in
1998, the WHO was unable to assist Taiwan with an outbreak of a virus
that killed 70 children and infected 1,100 more. WHO membership could
have prevented needless deaths and sickness.
Third, the WHO could benefit enormously from Taiwan's more active
participation in the WHO. Taiwan has made tremendous achievements in
the field of health, and the WHO should have full access to Taiwan's
technical and financial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the bill requires the State Department to initiate a
plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the annual
summit of the World Health Assembly, next month in Geneva. I believe
that this is an appropriate step for the United States to take in
support Taiwan's participation in international organizations.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction.
It requires the Secretary of State to endorse and to work to obtain
observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization.
The 24 million people of Taiwan are building a thriving Democracy.
It's the policy of the United States to support Taiwan's
participation in International Organizations.
To lead the Free World, we must act on our responsibility by standing
up for democracy and our democratic allies.
Taiwan is an island of freedom, but it is surrounded by the constant
threat of Communist oppression from Mainland China.
Taiwan's participation in world organizations deserves recognition.
They are one of our largest trading partners and they are a free and
democratic nation that has recently undertaken a free, peaceful,
democratic transition of power.
If we are going to support international organizations, we can't deny
admission to free, democratic societies, with populations and economies
that are larger than three quarters of the other participating nations.
That would be unfair and it would constitute an abdication of American
leadership.
Taiwan is a symbol of freedom and opportunity for the billion and a
half Chinese held captive under communist rule.
Democracy, and the support for human rights that goes with it, is
spreading throughout the world--we should reward and encourage it at
every possible opportunity.
We should stand by our friends. We should stand up for freedom and
democracy. We should never waiver on matters of fundamental principle.
And that means we must stand with Taiwan.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 428, which states
that Taiwan should have appropriate and meaningful participation in the
World Health Organization (WHO). The legislation also requires the
State Department to initiate a U.S. plan to endorse and obtain observer
status for Taiwan at the annual summit of the World Health Assembly in
May 2001 in Geneva. In particular, I would like to commend
Representative Sherrod Brown for his leadership on this issue.
In the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review Act, the U.S. declared its intention
to support Taiwan's participation in international organizations. We
should abide by our intentions and support Taiwan's participation at
the WHO.
The WHO is an organization dedicated to preventing the spread of
disease and coordinating efforts on international health work. In a
time when resources to fight global infectious diseases are scarce, we
should encourage assistance and coordination from all sources. The
global efforts to save lives should not take a back seat to China's
global campaign against Taiwan.
Taiwan should be able to benefit from and contribute to the work of
the WHO. As an official observer, Taiwan would assist in preventing the
spread of global diseases. Taiwan's achievements in health are
substantial, including high life expectancy levels and low maternal and
infant mortality rates compared to other developed countries. Taiwan
could assist both financially and technically in international aid and
health activities benefiting people all over the world. Unfortunately,
Taiwan has been unable to render such assistance through the WHO
because it is not able to participate.
Taiwan's WHO entry is clearly being held hostage to the Chinese
government. Last
[[Page 6078]]
year, Beijing successfully blocked Taiwan's observer status in the
World Health Organization. China led nine other nations--including Cuba
and Pakistan in striking down Taiwan's motion ``due to international
political realities and China's objections.'' It is time for the U.S.
to honor its commitments and support the right of 21 million Taiwanese
people to assist and benefit from WHO participation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to conclude by again congratulating the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for this fine resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 428, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 428.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1430
URGING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO SUPPORT EVENTS SUCH AS THE
``INCREASE THE PEACE DAY''
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 113) urging the House of Representatives to support
events such as the ``Increase the Peace Day.''
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 113
Whereas in order to promote non-violence, respect and
responsibility, the students of Challenger Middle School in
Lake Los Angeles, California, in conjunction with the Museum
of Tolerance in Los Angeles, hold each year an ``Increase the
Peace Day'' program on April 20; and
Whereas as part of the program, students signed the
following pledge:
``I will honor the memory of the victims of school violence
by committing myself to finding a peaceful solution to my own
conflicts with others.
``I will not hit another person for any reason.
``I will not threaten another person, even as a joke.
``I will report all rumors of violence to the nearest adult
and to all adults who will listen to me.
``I will smile at students I don't know when I make eye
contact.
``I will talk to my parents about what takes place in
school.
``I will remind myself and others that the diversity of the
United States is one of our main strengths.
``I will be aware that I have choices in life and that I am
responsible for my own actions.
``I will be considerate of other people and their feelings.
``I will not spread rumors.
``I will not call other people names that are hurtful to
them.
``I will help make the world a better place one smile at a
time.
``I will ask for help when I am confused or lonely.
``I will make others aware of these pledges in order to
spread this message of peace.
``I will take the responsibility as a citizen of this great
nation to make our country a more peaceful place by doing my
own part to Increase the Peace.'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges schools
across the United States to participate in similar ``Increase
the Peace Day'' events.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
General Leave
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H. Res. 113.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support H. Res.
113, which is an important resolution that urges the House of
Representatives to support ``Increase the Peace Day'' events throughout
the country.
Just last Friday, on April 20, students, teachers, parents and
community leaders from the Antelope Valley in my congressional district
held an ``Increase the Peace Day.'' This was the second ``Increase the
Peace Day'' and coincides with the anniversary of the Columbine High
School tragedy. The program featured the formation of a human peace
sign, presentations by representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's
Museum of Tolerance and the granting of ``Increase the Peace'' awards
to youths who have prevented violence at their schools. One of the
highlights of the day was when the students signed an ``Increase the
Peace'' pledge, outlining how they could avoid similar acts of violence
on their campuses.
Among the promises in the pledge were to find a peaceful solution to
conflicts, to not hit another person, to not threaten another person,
to report all rumors of violence to an adult, to celebrate diversity,
and to seek help when feeling lonely or confused. I was proud to join
the other supporters of ``Increase the Peace Day'' and be a part of
this incredible event.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the
outstanding efforts of teacher Bruce Galler at Challenger Middle
School, who came up with the original idea for ``Increase the Peace
Day'' because he believes that something can and should be done. Bruce
uses a quote by Edward Everett Hale on literature to promote the event,
and I believe it illustrates what was accomplished on ``Increase the
Peace Day.'' The quote is as follows: ``I am only one, but I am one. I
cannot do everything, but I can do something. I will not let what I
cannot do interfere with what I can do.''
At the first ``Increase the Peace Day'' last year, I promised to
introduce a resolution in order to show that as one Member of Congress,
I can do something to highlight this important event, to encourage all
Americans to reject anger and hate, and to instead promote peace and
community.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Bruce and his students for
hosting last week's events. The first event that they held last year
was at Challenger Middle School and included the students from
Challenger. This year they expanded it to include the whole community,
and students were bused from many schools around the area. It was an
exciting event.
At the end of the event, when the different resolutions had been
presented, the students all came onto the field and formed this large
peace symbol, and we had a helicopter from the local Marine base that
flew over and took pictures of the event. It was exciting and a great
thing to be part of.
It was wonderful to see what the youth did do of a positive nature.
We hear so often of the negative things and we do not hear of the
positive events, and there are many great wonderful, positive events
happening around this country.
In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution
and to encourage their own local communities to institute a similar
program.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a subject close to my heart,
and
[[Page 6079]]
that is promoting tolerance and diversity. I commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) for introducing House Resolution 113, which
urges us to recognize events such as ``Increase the Peace Day,'' which
promotes the kind and thoughtful treatment of all people.
As adults, we have a responsibility to show our children the
importance of compassion and tolerance. It is up to us to set an
example for all of our young people to show them how to consider other
people's feelings and how to be respectful of different points of view.
We must take time to listen to our children and teach them to
appreciate those who are different from us. Our children must learn
that there is strength in diversity.
My home State of California and my congressional district are
incredibly diverse, and I am proud to say that, where we have many
Hispanic Americans, we have Asian Americans, and different people from
all walks of life. Over 72 different languages are spoken and taught
within our schools there. I cannot imagine Los Angeles or California
without the incredible mix of people and backgrounds that we have. The
State just would not be the same.
In addition to embracing our diversity, we must also teach our
children how to solve conflicts peacefully. In a country as diverse as
ours, there are bound to be differences of opinion. It is important
that we teach young people how to express those differences without
violence.
Many schools are already working to promote the benefits of diversity
and the importance of peaceful conflict resolution. We know this is
necessary because so many children across America dread going to school
because of the harsh social pressures that they face simply by being
themselves. Some students cannot talk to others for fear of being
chastised by their peers. They feel embarrassed if they do not have the
right clothes on or right colors or right shoes. If parents and schools
work together, we can help young people feel good about themselves and
show compassion for others.
A simple smile, a warm greeting, open communication, these are the
things that help us live together peacefully. We must educate our
parents about the importance of communicating one-on-one with their
children, setting a good example, and promoting tolerance. Programs
which help parents communicate with their children will truly be a good
step in the right direction.
In Los Angeles, we have seen the tragedy of violent crimes committed
against people simply because of the color of their skin. It is my hope
that conflict resolution and parental involvement will help prevent
this sort of tragedy in the future. If we can teach people when they
are still young to embrace diversity and resolve their differences
peacefully, we will increase our Nation's strength and unity.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to also support this resolution and
support events like ``Increase the Peace Day.''
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman
from California for yielding me this time. I also want to commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for introducing this resolution.
It seems to me that this resolution is an indication that we can, in
fact, learn behavior. I have always been told that people have a
tendency to learn what they live and live what they learn, and if we
begin to focus seriously on conflict resolution, on the development of
peaceful approaches to finding solutions to problems that people might
have, then I think we can seriously reduce violence, and I think we can
create for ourselves a saner, better world in which to live.
So I want to commend the University of Illinois for its violence
prevention efforts and programs, the Chicago public school system, and
also Prevention Partnership, a local community organization, and a
program called Hands Without Guns, where children are taught that there
are other things that they can do with their hands than put a gun in
them. If one always has something else in one's hands, then, of course,
there is no room for a gun.
So I commend all of those, once again, who would promote this
approach to curbing violence in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the resolution.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by also providing my
support and urging other Members to support this House resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their
comments and for their support on this issue. I have no further
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 113.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until approximately 5 p.m.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 5 p.m.
____________________
{time} 1700
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons) at 5 p.m.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 83, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011, with a
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree
to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Spratt moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con.
Res. 83 be instructed, within the scope of the conference:
(1) to increase the funding for education in the House
resolution to provide for the maximum feasible funding;
(2) to provide that the costs of coverage for prescription
drugs under Medicare not be taken from the surplus of the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
(3) to increase the funding provided for Medicare
prescription drug coverage to the level set by the Senate
amendment; and
(4) to insist that the on-budget surplus set forth in the
resolution for any fiscal year not be less than the surplus
of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal
year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the proponent of the motion
and a member of the other party each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
explain the motion.
Mr. Speaker, this motion has four purposes. First of all, it says to
the
[[Page 6080]]
conferees on the budget resolution, go as close as they can to what the
Senate provided for education.
Basically, the House resolution endorses and puts forth the
President's budget. The President's budget provides an increase in
education next year, fiscal year 2002, of 5.8 percent. That is an
increase, but it pales in comparison with last year where the increase
was 18 percent and the last 5 years over which the increase in
education has averaged 13 percent.
The Senate, given a choice, a choice we did not have here on the
House floor, between a higher tax cut and less for education, opted to
do more for education on four different occasions. As a consequence,
their plus-up for education over and above the President's baseline
budget is nearly $300 billion. We are simply saying go as far as they
feasibly can toward the Senate on education.
Second, with respect to Medicare, and in particular with respect to
Medicare prescription drugs, the President's proposal again was to put
$147 billion out for the next 10 years to provide for a temporary
helping-hand benefit and eventually to have some kind of benefit
possibly integrated with Medicare. Over 10 years the amount he provided
for this purpose was $147 billion, but when that proposal came from the
House and to the Senate, Members in both bodies said it is totally
unrealistic. It will not even get Medicare prescription drugs off the
ground.
The Senate, once again, had a choice. They had an amendment on the
Senate floor. The Senate plussed-up its allocation for Medicare
prescription drugs to $300 billion, a minimum amount that is realistic
to provide for a decent benefit.
We say go to the Senate, be realistic, be faithful to their
commitments about providing prescription drug coverage under Medicare;
provide the full amount that the Senate allocates in its budget
resolution.
Third, Mr. Speaker, we say with respect to funding that new benefit,
this money should not come out of the Medicare part A trust fund. It is
already obligated, over-obligated, scheduled to run short of funds in
the second decade of this century. Rather than putting another
obligation on funds that are already short and over-obligated, we think
that the funding for the Medicare prescription drug benefit should come
from the general fund of the Treasury and not from the hospital
insurance trust fund of Medicare.
That is what this budget resolution provides. Take the money out of
the general fund to pay for Medicare prescription benefits so that the
HI trust fund is not made insolvent any sooner.
Finally, we say as to the HI trust fund, the hospital insurance trust
fund generally, protect it. Go to the language that we passed here on
the House floor, where we said that Medicare should be treated just the
same as the Social Security surpluses; that is to say, it will be used
only for benefits provided under those two programs, and in the
meantime to buy up outstanding debt in which the trust fund surpluses
will be invested.
This is not an idle concern. The President's budget came to us
claiming that it had unprecedented reserve funds or contingency funds.
In one place it says it is providing a contingency fund of a $1.2
trillion. Towards the end, that contingency fund is whittled down to
$842 billion. When one looks more closely at the $842 billion, they
find that of that amount $526 billion comes from the consolidation of
what is left over with what is in the surplus, the surplus accumulating
and the HI trust fund. Those two numbers add up to $842 billion.
{time} 1715
We say that the contingency fund should not include the Medicare
trust funds. In keeping with the resolution that this House passed by
an overwhelming margin, that money should be confined exclusively to
Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, these are the four principles that we raise in our
motion to the conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition and yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is good to have the opportunity to
discuss some of the budget issues with the gentleman from South
Carolina. I would have thought over the last couple of weeks some
issues would have resolved themselves, but we find ourselves debating
some of the same issues that we were debating prior to the Easter
recess. It is good to engage in these discussions again.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman's motion to instruct
conferees to some extent is asking for the second bite of the apple.
What could not be won on the floor as an alternative is being requested
as a motion to instruct. I have to reluctantly oppose the instruction.
Most are noncontroversial. Certainly motions to conferees are
nonbinding on the conferees themselves. It gives an opportunity for
Members to make a few points that they would like to make, and I
certainly respect that opportunity; but let us go through the motion to
instruct conferees.
First, to increase the funding for education in the House resolution
to provide for maximum feasible funding. I do not think that there is
much controversy there. If Members of Congress had the opportunity to
hold meetings such as I did, for example I held a youth summit in
Dubuque, Iowa, to talk about education and met with special educators,
people involved in special education, people involved in college
education and higher education, early childhood education, reading,
teacher training, administrators, principals, they all tell us anything
we can do to improve education in this country is something that we
should go back to Washington and get working on. Certainly one of the
areas where we can help in education is to increase funding. That is
why we made those increases, 11 percent; and we will hold to those. We
will cheerfully continue to support those major increases in funding
for education.
Mr. Speaker, certainly people say we can do more. I might add in that
chorus. While we added $1.25 billion in special education in this
resolution, I personally, as well as professionally, know we should do
more; but this fits within a balanced budget and a balanced approach
towards making sure that our kids have the best education possible.
Number two says to provide that the cost of coverage for prescription
drugs under Medicare not be taken from the surplus in Medicare.
What we are saying is even though we collect taxes to provide for a
Medicare benefit, you cannot use those tax dollars to either modernize
Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit. I do not think I
understand.
We ask the American people for their hard-earned money to pay for a
Medicare benefit; and then we say even though there are some obvious
reforms, we cannot use the surplus to reform Medicare or modernize
Medicare or provide a prescription drug benefit, we have to find money
elsewhere, which is a little bit suspicious because we know our friends
on the other side do not support tax relief, and it is probably a
juxtaposition of tax relief versus Medicare benefits when all of us
know that we can provide those benefits from the surplus in Medicare as
well as possibly adding additional funds as necessary.
It does not all have to come from the HI Trust Fund. We have made
that very clear within our budget. We certainly do believe and we all
voted on that as I believe one of the first resolutions of this year
that we were going to lock away that money for Medicare and allow it
for modernization and for adding the prescription drug benefits. So
number two flies in the face of what the House has already done.
On three, it says to increase the funding provided for Medicare
prescription drug benefit to the amount set by the Senate. I am not
going to presuppose or prenegotiate this item today, but I think that
is probably something that is at least a reasonable request. I think we
had that debate on the floor here. While the President's proposal was
153, it probably is going to be scored slightly more than that; and,
therefore, we may have to make an adjustment there. So number three is
not that controversial.
[[Page 6081]]
Number four says to insist that the on-budget surplus set forth in
the resolution for any fiscal year not be less than the surplus of the
HI Trust Fund for that fiscal year. I think again this goes back to
number two. What this is basically saying is that we are presupposing
that you cannot use the trust fund that we collect the taxes from for
Medicare in order to modernize or provide a prescription drug benefit
for Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, two and four are really the controversy. One and three,
I think, are easily supported or at least certainly not controversial
on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I would oppose the instruction for those two reasons. We
should be able to, as we have already voted almost unanimously in this
House in a bipartisan way, be able to provide the surplus from Medicare
to provide a prescription drug benefit as well as to modernize
Medicare. Those funds should be available. Since they are paid for
Medicare, they should be allowed to modernize Medicare and improve
Medicare and provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.
Therefore, I believe it would not be a good idea for us to instruct
our conferees just now appointed to hold that kind of position as we
begin our negotiations with the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just in response, what we are trying to do here is make
a decision as to which is better. The Senate had a choice. They could
do more for tax cuts and less for education, or more for education and
less for tax cuts. They decided to do substantially more for education.
By the same token, they decided to adequately fund a Medicare
prescription drug benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to talk about double counting and
overobligation of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, and in particular the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget, I just returned from my district where I
had a number of town meetings with my constituents. We talked about the
budget, and we talked about the budget not just being a 1-year budget,
but the decisions we might make this year would have implications far
beyond the next fiscal year, implications far beyond the next 10 fiscal
years.
What we are saying with respect to the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund, the Medicare Trust Fund, is it is not so simple that we can
take that money today and spend it on something else and not have to
make it up later. My colleague from Iowa uses the do-not-worry, be-
happy defense, that we can add prescription drug benefits using this
money, we can modernize Medicare and use this money, and it will all
work out in the wash. But the fact is that it will not work out in the
wash because the money that you want to use, the trust fund money, is
already obligated. It is already obligated to pay Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the demand on that money is not
declining, it is increasing as America ages. It is interesting because
my colleagues some years back, in fact my first year in the House when
we went through all of the debates over the budget and whether we were
going to cut Medicare or not, and the Speaker of the House at that time
said we needed to cut Medicare in order to save it because the trust
fund was going bankrupt; and yet today the Republican Party has brought
a budget to the floor that would in fact shorten that trust fund,
shorten the life span of that trust fund after all of the work we have
gone to to extend the life span of that trust fund.
Legally and logically it is not correct that you can take Medicare
Trust Fund moneys and spend them on anything, whether it is
prescription drugs or highways or Howitzers or whatever. Those moneys
are obligated to the beneficiaries currently and those in the future
who will enjoy the benefits of the inpatient hospital trust fund.
Mr. Speaker, all we are saying is let us use some honest bookkeeping
and set those funds aside. If we do not do that, what we are going to
end up with in this budget, not just in fiscal year 2002, but for many
years to come, is a budget which is borrow and spend. We are going to
spend today, and then we are going to borrow tomorrow much deeper than
we would otherwise.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and also thank the gentleman for the instruction to the conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I want to understand the message. I think I heard the
gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, say
that one of these points he had some problem with. I do not know why my
colleagues would have any problem with any of the points.
First of all, we are trying to make sure that we have a minimal
amount of moneys, and that is the same amount that the Senate put for
Medicare. We are trying to make sure that at least that amount of
money, which has been recognized by both Republicans and Democrats, on
this floor as well as in the Senate bicamerally, that the 147 was an
insufficient number, and that $300 billion is closer.
Mr. Speaker, so first, it is to make sure that we have adequate
amounts of money for prescription drugs. Is that what we are trying to
achieve?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is
correct.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know anyone in the House who
would disagree with that. The Republicans say maybe they will do it.
The second one, there was a resolution at the beginning of the
session that said we will not take any moneys out of the Social
Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Trust Fund; so we are simply saying
those dollars should not be financed out of the Medicare Trust Fund.
The Medicare Trust Fund, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen)
said, has already been pledged. It has been obligated. You cannot
obligate it two and three times.
Mr. Speaker, is that the second point?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, that is
correct.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, why should the Republicans disagree with
that? We are on record as saying we do not want to raid the Medicare
Trust Fund, and this simply says it cannot be raided to pay for the
additional moneys needed for prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for putting
forward a very practical and a very consistent bill. I must say I wish
we had more money for education. I wish we would go all of the way to
where the Senate is. The second point is to go as close as possible to
the Senate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
for a very practical motion to instruct, and I hope all of my
colleagues vote for the motion to instruct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for
his work all along, and for bringing up these instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the House-passed budget is really full of irresponsible
tax cuts and fuzzy math; and it should be adjusted to match closely
what has been reached in compromise in the other body.
As a teacher, I am particularly disappointed that the budget
resolution fails to deal adequately with the many urgent needs for our
children in public education. At a time when more is demanded of our
schools through higher standards, annual assessments, ``increased
accountability'' is the phrase we are using this year, we risk failing
too many children by not providing greater resources to turn around
low-performing schools.
Mr. Speaker, the House-passed mark falls short of providing adequate
help
[[Page 6082]]
for teacher training, recruitment, for school construction and
modernization, for meeting Federal obligations to assist local schools
in providing excellent education for students with special needs. The
average age of public schools in this country is 40 years old. We have
to get the students and their facilities into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, estimates are quite clear that we will need 2.2 million
new teachers over the next 10 years to keep up with attrition. This is
not even to get smaller class sizes; this is just to keep up.
{time} 1730
Too often, I hear stories of teachers with history degrees teaching
science and math because the schools have trouble finding qualified
teachers. Having spent a year on the National Commission on the
Teaching of Mathematics and Science, the John Glenn Commission, I have
offered a bill to help schools recruit and retain qualified science and
math teachers.
Mr. Speaker, we have to do that. The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget said a few moments ago that they have provided, at the
President's request, an 11 percent increase in education spending. No,
it is about half that; it is 5.8 percent. The total increase in the
President's budget, as in the House-approved budget, would not cover
even half of the cost of meeting our needs in special education, of
meeting our obligation, our Federal obligation to assist the local
schools with special education.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the motion to
instruct conferees.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I would like to engage the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget and perhaps also the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott) in a discussion of the situation we are facing with
respect to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund.
We have had for some years in this body, although sometimes the
political rhetoric would not indicate it, an agreement between the
parties that the Social Security Trust Fund ought to be off limits,
that we ought not to be using the Social Security surplus to cut taxes
or to increase spending or for any other purpose, other than to reduce
the debt and ensure the future of Social Security, to make certain that
those benefits will be there when the baby boomers retire, when that
program's cash flow reverses.
I would like to ask my colleagues if there is any principled reason
why we should treat the Medicare Trust Fund any differently from the
Social Security Trust Fund. If anything, the Medicare Trust Fund is
facing even more severe problems, even earlier than we face with Social
Security.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Trust Fund is currently slated
to become insolvent in 2028 or 2029. Social Security, fortunately,
could last until 2038, 2039, for 10 more years. So the Medicare Trust
Fund is intended, for the same reason, to sequester these funds, to
confine them for use for Medicare; and we have reached certainly an
accord on both sides of the aisle, both Houses and the White House as
to Social Security, and I think the same logic applies to Medicare. It
is not an idle concern.
We have a handout, if anyone cares to see it, and they will see that
under the House resolution, as early as 2005 by our calculation, that
resolution will take us back into the Medicare Trust Fund. The Senate
resolution is even worse. By our calculation, in 2002 the Senate
resolution would lead us into the trust fund to the tune of $11
billion, that soon, and we will be invading the trust fund in Medicare
again.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are
at present running a slight surplus in Medicare, but the Medicare Trust
Fund is accumulating assets which we will need to draw on later. If we,
instead, take those funds and use them for prescription drug benefits,
as badly as that is needed, would that not reduce our ability to meet
our basic Medicare obligations, the prescription benefit aside?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, that is
the very point we are trying to make. The fund as it is is
overobligated from beneficiary expectations, so we are simply saying,
do not overload another obligation on top of a fund that is already
short of meeting its scheduled obligations.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, having sat on the Medicare Commission for
a year and looked at the future of Medicare, and having realized that
beginning in 2010, we are going to double the number of people on
Medicare as the baby boomers move into that stage of their life, we
cannot realistically argue against putting money in advance of that big
deficit that is coming. Even more important, it is taken out of
people's paychecks under the HI, the health insurance. If that money is
not used for Medicare, it is breaking the trust with the workers who
put it in.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time. I want to also thank him for all of his work
on our behalf as the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
We all recognize that we have an urgent national need in this country
to make a greater investment in our education system so that we can
help a greater number of our children succeed within that system. I had
the honor and the pleasure of meeting with President Bush before he was
sworn in to talk with him and a number of our colleagues about
education reform in this country. We talked about the things that
needed to be done: to make schools more accountable, to make teachers
more accountable, to improve the professional development of teachers,
to make sure that we could direct the resources, as he said, to the
poorest children in the poorest performing schools. But we also said in
that meeting that it was very clear that those things would not happen
unless we had the resources that were necessary to provide those
schools the quality education that we all want.
I had an opportunity to meet several other times with him and with
Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords and with the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and again we talked about the kinds of reforms and the
results that this President genuinely wants. We said again, Mr.
President, if we are going to have testing and we are going to require
all of the States to go about this, we are going to have to provide the
resources. We are going to provide the resources so that, in fact, it
can be done in the right way, not in the wrong way, not in a way that
is harmful.
If we are really going to help these children and we are going to get
qualified teachers in front of them on a daily basis, we are going to
have to improve the quality of these teachers. It is going to take
resources. He assured us that he recognized that and he understood
that.
Now, when I see the budget, I am deeply disappointed, because a
decision was made here between the times of those meetings and the
times of this budget that those resources would be put off into the tax
cut. Now we find that the amount of the tax cut that goes to the
richest 1 percent of the people in this country is 13 times the amount
we would spend on education in this budget, 13 times the amount on the
richest 1 percent, and yet we have a huge number of children who are
not getting access to a decent, first-class education, who are not
having the kinds of reforms that the President wants, that I want, and
that many of
[[Page 6083]]
my colleagues in the Congress want, will not bring about the results
that we want, that every parent wants for their child in the American
education system.
Mr. Speaker, we urgently need these resources. We urgently need these
resources because our schools are educating more children now than at
any time in our history. They are educating more children with English
as a second language, children with disabilities. These are expensive
items, and we owe these children an education, and we have to make sure
that they have an opportunity to participate in it.
That is not what this budget does. It is not an 11 percent increase,
as is well documented by the minority on the Committee on the Budget
and our committee and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We
are talking about a 5 percent increase. We are talking about the
smallest increase in many years, and that is simply not adequate to get
the results that the President says he wants and to get them for the
children that he has quite properly focused on in his discussion of
education, the children that are in most need of these resources so
that they can get the same access to an education that children get in
the wealthier schools and in the middle-class schools. But we cannot do
it on this budget. We cannot do it on this budget.
This budget suggests that we are going to try to get first-class,
world- class standards in education attainment on behalf of America's
children, but we are going to do it on the cheap, and that would be a
horrible mistake, because that will lock us into another 5 years of
spending without getting the results that the taxpayers deserve and
that the children deserve in terms of their educational opportunity.
So I commend the gentleman for the motion to instruct, to say that we
should move toward the figures that the Senate has talked about and has
suggested in their budget resolution, figures that will, in fact,
provide us the kind of resources that are necessary for special
education, for Title I, for English as a second language, so that we
can hire the 100,000 counselors that are necessary, so that we can
finish hiring the 100,000 teachers that have allowed us to reduce class
sizes. Those are the urgent needs of the American education system, but
they cannot be met in this budget without going with the numbers that
are suggested in the motion to instruct.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
read the motion to instruct to the gentleman from California when he is
referring to numbers in the motion to instruct: ``To increase the
funding for education in the House resolution to provide for maximum
feasible funding.''
Now, the gentleman from California is a Member of the House who
stands behind no one when it comes to his advocacy of education and
education funding and for our students. He is a friend, he is someone
who has always tried to responsibly put forward reforms and proposals
on education. But to suggest that this motion to instruct somehow
provides more money than what the House resolution provided is just
simply not the case.
Let me review with the gentleman from California and others what is
in the budget that has been passed that we are defending here today.
The House-passed budget accommodates not only the President's ``no
child left behind'' education reform, which links dollars to
accountability. Simply throwing more money at the programs will not
make them better. The gentleman from California even testified to that
fact before me and the Committee on the Budget. It increases elementary
and secondary education funding by 10 percent. It triples funding for
reading programs. It improves by increasing IDEA by $1.25 billion to
ensure that every child, particularly children with special needs, have
access to the best possible education. It increases education savings
accounts from $500 to $5,000 and makes them available not only for
their original intent, but expands them to K through 12 education. It
provides a full tax exemption to students using qualified prepaid
tuition for college, and it provides $60 million to help older children
in foster care transition to adulthood, including providing vouchers to
cover tuition and vocational training costs.
Now, the gentleman says that we do not really have, if we take this
out and we move this over and we minus this off the top, it is not
really an 11 percent increase. One cannot do that. It is an 11 percent
increase in this budget. One cannot say, if we do not include this, we
do not include that; it is all part of the budget, it is all in here,
that it is somehow some other percentage.
It is an 11 percent increase. We believe that is a responsible
increase.
Are there more ways that we can improve education in this country?
You bet. Is throwing money at it the only answer? No. That is why we
need to move through this budget as quickly as possible, give these
instructions to the committee, give these resources to the committees
so that they can begin to reform our education programs in this country
and begin to make sure that no child is left behind. Just simply to
come in here and say, it is not enough money without the reforms, it is
not enough money without proposals, it is not enough money just because
somebody says it is not enough money does not mean it is not enough
money.
Mr. Speaker, 11 percent over and above the huge increases we have
provided for education has not necessarily solved the education
concerns of America, and just providing a rhetorical response on the
floor as a motion to instruct conferees, saying the maximum feasible
funding, is not a way to do it either.
We believe this is a responsible budget, it is responsible in the
context of overall reform of education. It will help us to ensure that
no child is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to respond to the gentleman before yielding to the gentleman from
Florida.
Let me make clear that this budget passed by the House provided a 5.8
percent increase for fiscal year 2002 in education. In over 10 years,
the President's budget, which was basically endorsed, provides just
above the rate of inflation. Now, 5.8 percent is an increase, but it is
less than half the increase of last year and less than half the
increase of the last 5 years, and less than a third of the increase of
last year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support
of the motion to instruct conferees with respect to the education
increase that has been proposed.
The Senate has finally started to take us in the direction we need to
go, an additional $300 billion increase, supported by Democrats and
Republicans, to begin to put our money where our mouth is. I applaud
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget putting emphasis on
increased funding for special education. But most of what we have said
about doing that are promises. This is a chance for us today to put
that into action and to begin to move in the direction of more funding
for both special education and general education.
{time} 1745
We know what works. We know what we need to do: we need to fix up
some of our crumbling schools. We need to fix our schools that are
overcrowded.
We have a class-reduction program at the Federal level that has paid
huge dividends. In my community in Florida, in the Tampa Bay area, in
Hillsboro County, $8 million has gone into reducing class size in some
of our most struggling schools. It has given control of the classroom
back to the teacher to reach those kids in the back row like me that
needed some special attention to get engaged in learning.
As the teaching shortage begins to grow, we are going to have to pay
more attention to attracting qualified teachers.
The Senate recognized these things when they increased education
spending on a bipartisan basis. There is no
[[Page 6084]]
reason why we should not do the same thing here today.
We are about to debate finally the President's proposal to provide
more accountability and more resources to education. Many of us
applauded him during the campaign for taking that position, both on the
accountability and on the spending.
Guess what: unless we take the step today of adopting this motion to
recommit conferees, those are hollow words, because this is the
spending blueprint. This is the way we begin to back up with actions
the words of the President, the words of the Congress, that we all want
to do more for education. So I would urge adoption of the motion to
instruct conferees with respect to education as well as the other
points that have been made today.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
outlining some of the implications for elementary and secondary
education on this budget.
Is it not true that President Bush campaigned on getting the Pell
grants, in opening up opportunities for students on higher education,
getting those Pell grants over $5,000?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Yes, he did.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. This budget would keep the maximum Pell
grant well under $4,000. It is simply not adequate to do what we need
to do to open the doors to opportunity in higher education.
We have been increasing Pell grants several hundred dollars a year
for several years. This would increase the Pell grant, as I understand
it; and this has been borne out by CBO, only by $150. That is totally
inadequate. It really falls over $1,000 short of what President Bush
himself promised.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think the incredibly meager
increase in the Pell grants cited by the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price) is really a pitiful example of how little we are doing and
how much more we can do.
I would urge that we adopt this motion to recommit conferees today.
Let us begin to put our actions where our words have been. Mr. Speaker,
let us start to live up to what we know are the Chair's intentions to
do more for special education in Congress. Let us lay the floor for the
groundwork that is going to be done in the House and Congress in the
next several years to do more for our schools and to let them make
their decisions at home, let them reduce class size, fix up the
schools, hire qualified teachers, and make sure we leave no children
behind.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just again refer the gentleman to the first
paragraph. It is kind of hard for me to disagree with the first
paragraph.
It says: ``To increase the funding in the House Resolution to
provide'' not so much money for IDEA, not so much money for reading,
not so much money for Pell grants, as has been argued on the floor here
today, but just ``maximum feasible.''
We are all for that. My goodness, we go out and swing a dead cat and
we could probably hit everybody who would be for maximum feasible
everything in the budget. That is not what a budget is all about. A
budget is putting numbers in here.
We put a number in here. I think our number is very responsible when
looked at in the context of all of the numbers that are in the budget.
So to come in here and say we want to instruct the conferees, here is a
very specific instruction: get in there and do something really good
for education. Okay, we will do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the vice-chairman of the Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where to begin.
First and foremost, it is interesting to sit in the Chamber today, to
sit in the Chamber today and hear so much happiness and joy over
something that has been done in the other body. I do not think I have
heard this much excitement about legislation in the other body since I
have been a Member of Congress, though admittedly, that has been for
only two terms.
There has been a lot of discussion about education. Education is
important. The chairman of our committee just talked about the
instruction here to provide the maximum feasible amount for education.
I am all for good and I am opposed to evil; and I think it is nice
that we have a motion to recommit conferees that says, let us provide
more money for good things. They did not actually write in ``less money
for bad things,'' but they might as well have.
But the fact of the matter is, if we go through what we passed on the
floor here, what came out of our Committee on the Budget, I think we do
have a very strong budget resolution. That is one of the reasons, for
anyone listening to this debate, that we see so many numbers being
thrown around: $1 billion here, $1 trillion of this, $10 billion here,
5, 18 percent. Because when we are not really able to argue about good
policy reform and good legislation, we try to blind people with
numbers.
I make that comment as a former engineer who maybe tried once or
twice to do the same, but I do not think it is appropriate for the
floor of the House.
Let me talk a little bit about what is in the budget resolution that
came out of committee. First, overall, we increase the size of the
government by about 4 percent, increase discretionary spending 4
percent.
I think most Americans looking at this blueprint would say well, we
are going to increase our household budget by about the level of
inflation. We are not going to live beyond our means. There is no
reason whatsoever that this Congress or any Congress should force
Americans to live beyond their means, should collect more in taxes than
we need, or should spend at 6 or 8 or 12 percent increases per year,
because everyone here knows that is the quickest way to drive us into
deficit.
A 4 percent increase in government, I certainly understand for a lot
of people in this Chamber that is not enough government. Increasing
spending 4 percent is not nearly enough government for some people
here. But I think for most Americans to have the government grow by 4
or 5 percent would be plenty.
What do we do on the debt? We pay down $2 trillion in debt over the
next 10 years. Everyone wants to see us retire public debt. We are
paying it down at a record level. We have not heard much discussion
about debt repayment in the debate tonight, and that is because the
focus is on more spending. We are not going to be able to pay down $2
trillion in debt if we just start allowing the budget resolution to
spend more and more and more.
We heard a discussion about education. We are increasing funding for
education by 11 percent, as the chairman described, 10 percent for K
through 12, tripling funding for literacy.
We have committed in the House budget resolution to a record increase
in special education funds, which is the largest unfunded Federal
mandate that I know of on the books.
But for some on the other side, it is never enough. It is all about
resources, resources, resources. How many times did we hear that word
tonight in talking about education? It is about resources, resources,
resources.
If money was the answer to improving education, then we could go to
those school districts in the country that were spending the most on
education, some of them perhaps here in Washington, DC., some perhaps
in New York City, and there we should find the best schools in the
country; and we do not, because it is not all about resources. It is
about how we deliver the education, it is about how we structure the
competition, it is about the needs of the student and whether or not
they are being met at the local level.
So much discussion has been held about resources; but there has been
no discussion about reform tonight, no discussion about accountability
and standards and all of the keystones that are in the President's
reform bill, and certainly no discussion about the importance of giving
those students in
[[Page 6085]]
the failing schools in this country, so many of them in economically
depressed areas of America, give those students a chance to get out of
those failing schools, give them the economic power of a grant of
school choice, and let their parents take them to a school that is
safe, that is reliable, and that can deliver their children with the
education that they deserve.
Education accountability and education choice is something the other
side does not want to discuss because, one, it means empowering
families to make a real decision; and two, because it means attacking a
base, a status quo base that wants no competition in the public
schools, no public school choice whatsoever.
I think that is outrageous. I think it is outrageous for people,
certainly not all the opponents of school choice, but for many of them
in the Senate and some here in the House who send their children to the
best private schools in the country, to then come and say, well, we
certainly do not want someone in a public school to have the power of
choice, to take their child out of a failing school and give them an
education and a safe setting that they deserve. But we hear about
spending. It is all about spending.
That brings us to the other portions of this motion to instruct, to
provide the cost of coverage for prescription drug benefits, not within
the hospitalization trust fund; in other words, to pay for Medicare,
but do not pay for Medicare with Medicare taxes.
That does not make sense to me. I do not think it makes sense to most
Americans. I would love to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
I voted for legislation on the floor last year to add a prescription
drug benefit to Medicare. But we have in the instructions here, if we
add a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, we do not take it out
of the Medicare Trust Fund.
Why would anyone want to do that? I think there is one answer that I
can think of. It is because they do not want to cut taxes. It is
because they want to increase the size of government. It is because
they want to find any excuse not to have to support tax relief.
Three years ago, 4 years ago, when I first came to Congress, they
said, we cannot cut taxes until we balance the budget. We enacted
balanced budget legislation in 1997.
Then they say, well, we cannot support cutting taxes because we have
not started paying down the debt. And we started paying off the Federal
debt.
Then they said, we cannot support any tax cuts until we set aside
every penny of the Social Security surplus. We did that.
Now tonight we are hearing, well, if we set aside the Social Security
surplus, let us also set aside the Medicare Trust Fund surplus.
We have actually done that in this budget, so now they are trying to
find ways to force spending even higher, to drive us back to a point
where, for some reason, we are not giving back that tax surplus to
Americans.
I think that is unfortunate. Some people will look for any
opportunity to vote against the tax cut. In the end, that is because
there are some for whom this is not nearly enough government, and only
by keeping all of the revenues that are coming into Washington in
Washington will they have the resources to increase the size and scope
of government to an untenable level.
I think that is unfortunate. Taxes today are higher than they have
been at any point since World War II. Almost 21 percent of our economy
is consumed in taxes. We wake up, we are paying energy taxes; we go to
work, we are paying gasoline taxes; we make a phone call, we are paying
3 percent in telecommunications taxes that were put in place in 1899 to
fund the Spanish-American war; of course, we pay income taxes; we pay
Medicare taxes; we pay Social Security taxes.
There is very little in our life that is not taxed today, and when we
are collecting more in taxes than in our history, and after we have
paid for all of the essential operations of government, expanded
discretionary spending 4 percent, invested in education and national
defense, added $2.8 billion to the National Institutes of Health, if we
have money left over, we ought to give it back to the American taxpayer
by letting them keep more of what they earn every week.
We do not say it nearly enough, but the reason we have record tax
collections is because Americans are working more productively and
harder and more efficiently, earning more. We ought to send a little
bit of that back.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct. It is
all about the size of government. It is all about trying to keep it
here in Washington. But I say when we take money out of Washington and
give it back to families, we are making Washington a little less
important and we are making those families and those American workers
more important. That is what I came here to do.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
{time} 1800
Let me say in response to the gentleman's statement about the bite
the government is taking out of our economy. In 1984, 1985, the peak of
the Reagan years, the government was consuming 23.5 percent of the
national pie known as GDP, gross domestic product. Peak of the Reagan
years, 23.5 percent of GDP being consumed by the government.
Today, under this budget, the budget we have this year, which is the
Clinton administration budget, less than 18\1/2\ percent of our GDP is
devoted to government spending. That is five full percentage points,
five full percentage points less than in the peak of the Reagan years.
In addition, let me clarify where we are with respect to education.
The President came here to this House and made his State of the Union.
He said the account plussed-up by the most in our budget will be
education, 11.4 percent. Our spirits were lifted.
We got the budget and started looking at it, started dissecting it;
and we saw that he was claiming for his increase for next year $2.1
billion that the House appropriated last year for 2002. When we back
that out, because he is not providing, it was previously provided, when
we back that out, we saw that the increase was 5.8 percent. As I have
said, 5.8 percent is an increase; I will grant one that. But it is
nothing compared to last year, 18 percent. It is nothing compared to
the last 5 years, 13 percent.
Furthermore, when the Senate had an opportunity, amendment by
amendment, to add to education, they added through four amendments $300
billion. When we say in this motion to instruct conferees provide the
maximum feasible funding for education, we also say within the scope of
conference, the text of the resolution. What does that mean? Get as
close to that $300 billion increase as you possibly can. We will not
dictate it in numerical terms. But within the scope of conference, that
means you can go up to $300 billion plus-up in education, provide the
maximum feasible funding for education.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question; and
it will be a short one.
Mr. SPRATT. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina indicated
that the Federal spending is 18.3 percent of GNP today.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, we are collecting almost 21 percent in
taxes.
Mr. SPRATT. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, what is the justification for collecting so
much more in taxes than the Federal Government is spending?
Mr. SPRATT. The difference is, the surplus is----
Mr. SUNUNU. I know what the difference is. What is the normal
justification for collecting so much more in taxes than we spend in
government?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is this: From 1982 to 1992, we increased
the national debt of this country, which we will leave to our children,
by more than $4 trillion. It is time we paid some of that off, and the
budget we brought to the floor would have done that.
[[Page 6086]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from South Carolina for his motion to instruct because it is clear that
the massive tax cut package pushed through the House earlier this year
was financed by cutting much-needed programs, particularly as it
regards to education.
There are devastating cuts in education spending affecting areas
where continued progress relies on at least maintaining current levels
of funding. Where the President proposes an increase in funds to
disadvantaged students and programs, he proposes major cutbacks in
educational technology programs and a decrease in funds for vocational
educational programs.
This budget does not provide the necessary increases to the Safe and
Drug Free Schools and Communities Program or the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, programs which have been proven to work and be
successful. This is a major blow to all urban and rural communities.
These programs are vital to providing a safe and stimulating academic
environment for students, both while they are in school and during
after-school hours. We need these programs, and we need them at full
funding, which covers real operating costs.
Despite campaign promises to increase the average Pell grant to
$5,100, this budget proposes approximately $3,800, a $100 increase per
student. The President then freezes all other critical student aid
programs, making it almost impossible for working families and students
to finance the higher education, to keep us moving on and keep us ahead
of the curve.
The elimination of the budget line for school renovation is ill-
advised and absolutely devastating to restoring and modernizing our
schools and bringing them up to the 21st century standards. This must
be reversed.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents need each and every dollar of this
Nation's education budget to provide a safe and competent educational
experience. The President's budget stops short of providing real
educational relief.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Sununu) says he does not know why we could possibly have ever seen
anything good about the other body. The fact is that even a stopped
clock is right twice a day. The question is: Do you know when it is? In
this instance, their budget makes more sense.
I went back to my district for 2 weeks, and I had four community
meetings with an average of 150 people in each meeting; 600 people.
Seventy-five percent of them, after you go through the budget and
explain what the tax cut does to all of it, said we do not want the tax
cut. We would rather have you pay down the debt. We would rather you
protect Social Security and protect Medicare. They understand.
Now, my colleagues say, well, you are from Seattle. You are from that
liberal district out on the Left Coast. The district of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Turner) right on the border between Texas and Louisiana
was reported in the New York Times as having exactly the same result.
The people understand that education is the future of this country,
that also the future is the security that comes with Medicare and
Social Security.
Now, for us to say that we cannot support the Senate, they in fact
are much more in tune with the people than are the House of
Representatives who rammed this budget through with very little
discussion about what it actually does in the long-term.
This resolution supports what the people support. They are not asking
for tax relief. They are not begging. When one explains in the meetings
who gets the tax cut and where it goes and what it means when we do not
pay down the debt and we have to pay an extra $500 billion in interest,
they say: Why do not you just keep the money, pay the debt down and
save the interest. You can use that on education.
People, they do not need to be rocket scientists. If one can add and
subtract, one can see what the Senate did. If my colleagues allowed us
to have the kind of amendments over here that they had in the other
body, we would have a much different resolution on the floor, because
they would have found there is much more support in this body for
education. But they would not allow it. So that is why they have to
have this resolution passed.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 1 minute remaining and the right to close.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 9\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to close our
portion of the debate.
Let me just reiterate that certainly we have tried and we will
continue to try and reform our education system. Part of that reform
requires us to consider new funding. Part of that reform requires us to
consider that we are not paying the bills that have been promised under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part of that is to
recognize that, as people continue a lifetime of learning, that we have
to find new ways to pay for higher education; that we recognize that
reading programs in this country need additional assistance.
But in part, that is the reason why our budget lays out for education
those many different priorities we believe so succinctly and with so
much of a priority.
I think it is wrong to assume that because we have over the course of
our appropriations passed some advanced appropriations that all of a
sudden now that that should not be included as a priority for this
year's budget or beyond. We have increased budgets for education in the
past. We will do so in the future. This year's is 11 percent. We are
proud of that. If there are ways that we can help improve that in the
future with reform, we will consider that.
As far as reform and modernization of Medicare, we believe based on
the 407 to 2 vote earlier this year that the House of Representatives
is clearly on record that not one penny of Social Security or Medicare
ought to be used for anything else except Social Security or Medicare.
Finally we have done that.
I do not want to recall history, but the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my good friend, knows that this is a very brief
history involved in any side coming forth with a budget that does not
touch the trust funds and the surpluses for Medicare and Social
Security. Finally, in a bipartisan way, this year, we were able to say
do not touch it, only use it for its intended purpose.
But this is its intended purpose. If one cannot use Medicare Trust
Fund dollars for Medicare, for modernization of Medicare, for improving
Medicare and providing Medicare recipients more Medicare, what is one
going to use the money for? I mean, I do not quite understand that.
This desire to run to the floor and to say every penny you use from
the Medicare Trust Fund automatically takes a penny away from its
solvency in the future is just not factually correct. Modernization is
intended for and we will pass modernization that needs to extend the
life of Medicare.
I just say the following: If one cannot use Medicare Trust Fund
dollars for Medicare, if one cannot use Medicare surpluses for
Medicare, what can one use it for? We believe we have finally arrived
at a bipartisan principle on that issue. We believe that is embodied in
this budget that has already passed the House.
I believe it would be a grave mistake to change that tact now and to
instruct our conferees, albeit it is not binding, I realize that, and
maybe we should not make a controversy out of it, but I believe it is a
mistake for us to bind our conferees or instruct our conferees by
suggesting to them that now, all of a sudden, we are going to reverse
that 407 to 2 vote and say that one cannot use Medicare now for
anything, one cannot use it for prescription drugs, one cannot use it
for modernization. I believe that would be a mistake.
[[Page 6087]]
Therefore, I urge Members not to adopt the motion to instruct offered
by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, basically this is what this motion to instruct does: The
Senate has added $300 billion to education. We say go as far as you
can, conferees, as far as feasible in the direction of the Senate's
plus-up for education.
Second, the Senate has provided $147 to $153 billion provided in the
House for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is the minimum
amount that will actually provide the benefit. We say adopt the Senate
provision.
Third, we say as to Medicare, do not double count. Do not take these
overobligated underfunded trust funds and use them for new obligation.
Take the money out of the general fund to provide for the Medicare
prescription drug benefit.
If one is for education, if one is for Medicare prescription drugs,
if one is for making Medicare sound and solvent far into the future,
one should vote for the motion to instruct conferees because that is
what it does.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the time for an electronic vote on the motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 428, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200,
nays 207, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 85]
YEAS--200
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--207
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Abercrombie
Brown (FL)
Cantor
Capps
Davis (CA)
Filner
Holden
Hunter
Istook
Linder
McHugh
McKinney
Mica
Moakley
Myrick
Payne
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Smith (TX)
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Vitter
Weller
Whitfield
{time} 1835
Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Messrs. OXLEY, GOSS, WATTS
of Oklahoma, SKEEN, HOBSON, WALDEN of Oregon, and NEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 85, I was unavoidably
detained due to flight cancellations. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Nussle, Sununu, and Spratt.
There was no objection.
____________________
CONCERNING PARTICIPATION OF TAIWAN IN WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 428, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 428, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 0, not voting 24, as follows:
[[Page 6088]]
[Roll No. 86]
YEAS--407
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Abercrombie
Berman
Brown (FL)
Cantor
Capps
Davis (CA)
Filner
Holden
Hunter
Linder
McHugh
McKinney
Mica
Moakley
Myrick
Payne
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Smith (TX)
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Vitter
Weller
Whitfield
{time} 1845
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86, I was unavoidably
detained, due to flight cancellations. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not vote
on rollcall Nos. 85 and 86. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall No. 85 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 86.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not able
to cast my vote on rollcall Nos. 85 and 86.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 85, a
motion to instruct conferees with respect to House Concurrent
Resolution 83, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 86, H.R. 428, Concerning the
Participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization.
____________________
{time} 1845
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 41, TAX
LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 107-49) on the resolution (H. Res. 118) providing for
consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax
limitations, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 503, UNBORN
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001
Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 107-50) on the resolution (H. Res. 119) providing for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 503) to amend title 18, United States
Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn
children from assault and murder, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1310
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1310.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York.
There was no objection.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
GAINESVILLE-HALL COUNTY JUNIOR LEAGUE CELEBRATES 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
SERVICE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and
commend the Junior League of Gainesville-Hall County, Georgia as that
group celebrates its 50th anniversary of service to our community. The
Junior League is an organization of women committed to promoting
volunteerism, developing
[[Page 6089]]
the potential of women, and improving the community; and the women of
Gainesville and Hall counties have certainly demonstrated during the
past half century that hard work and good spirits can make a powerful
difference in the community that we live in.
The Gainesville-Hall County chapter of the Junior League was founded
by Ms. Idalu Haugabook Slack and chartered on May 21, 1951. The group
began making a strong impact then, and I am proud to report that their
work has not only continued but has intensified since that time. In
1951, the 21 charter members donated some 515 hours of community
service. This year's membership donated over 8,000 hours, all while
raising some $80,000 in a single year.
Early projects from the Gainesville-Hall County Junior League
included services to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, a story hour for
children at the Hall County Library, and school lunches for less
fortunate children. In 1952, this strong group of women began two
permanent projects as well, the Green Hunter Homes Nursery, and the
Charity Ball. Their list of accomplishments continued through the
years, and in 1954 the first ``Fall Thrift Sale'' began.
The Junior League of Gainesville-Hall County has a special tradition
of helping children with speech problems. After spending 4 years
transporting children to the Atlanta Speech School, the members
retained a speech correctionist to allow the children of Gainesville
and Hall counties to get help closer to home. In the early 1970s, the
Northeast Georgia Speech and Hearing Center was opened, and I had the
honor of serving on that first board of directors. The Junior League
also donated money for newborn intensive care equipment.
In recent years, the Junior League of Gainesville-Hall County
underwrote a $30,000 grant to help open a new child advocacy center and
has participated in the massive restoration of the Gainesville Civic
Center. Joining with the Association of Junior Leagues International,
health concerns emerged as major initiatives and projects were begun,
including the creation of a mobile health van and the hosting of a
Child Welfare Forum. History shows that the women of Gainesville-Hall
County Junior League are able to continue old projects even as they
engage in new endeavors that help our community.
Mr. Speaker, one of the main problems of the Junior League is
demonstrating the effectiveness of trained volunteers, and they are
certainly doing a great job at it. League members have a strong history
as State and community leaders, and I commend the Gainesville-Hall
County Junior League for their continuing legacy of service and
achievement.
____________________
REMEMBERING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, earlier today tens of thousands of Armenian
mourners gathered on the hilltop over the city of Yerevan, the capital
of Armenia, to remember the Armenian genocide.
Here in the United States, in the Capitol, we also are remembering.
It often seems that the world has not learned the crucial lessons of
the past. We have witnessed awful genocides in nearly every corner of
the globe, including the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe, and genocides
in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia.
We must pause today and say, ``Never again.'' We must, because the
cost of the alternative is too high.
Eighty-six years ago in 1915, 1.5 million Armenians were killed; 300
Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in
Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, were rounded up, deported and
killed. 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were butchered in the streets
and in their homes.
Most Armenians in America are children or grandchildren of those
survivors although there are still many survivors amongst us today. I
sometimes hear voices that ask, ``You know, after all of these years,
why do we need to keep addressing this?'' After all, some of the
skeptics say, this was something that ended back in 1915 and the 1920s.
I suppose that someone who thinks of genocide with that kind of
detachment, as if it were just something in a textbook, some distant
memory, as something that happened far away and long ago to a people
that they never knew, that argument might sound reasonable. But the
reason we are here today with my colleagues is because we know better,
because we know that 1.5 million men, women and children who were
murdered in the genocide are not some abstraction, are not some number
in a textbook. To those who survived them, they were beloved family
members and dear friends. They were our fathers and mothers and
grandparents and uncles and aunts and confidants and neighbors. They
were individuals who were robbed of their dignity, they were robbed of
their humanity; and finally, they were robbed of their lives.
While time has made the events more distant, the pain is no less real
today than it has ever been. How can it be otherwise when we hear the
stories of the survivors. How can it be when we are haunted by the
words of women like Katharine Magarian. Just listen. Three years ago
she said, ``I saw my father killed when I was 9 years old. We lived in
an Armenian enclave in Turkey in the mountains. My father was a
businessman. The Turks, they ride in one day, got all of the men
together and brought them to the church. Every man came out with hands
tied behind them. They slaughtered them, like sheep, with long knives.
``They all die. Twenty-five people in my family die. You cannot walk,
they kill you. You walk, they kill you. They did not care who they
killed. My husband, who was a boy in my village but I did not know him
then, he saw his mother's head cut off,'' and she goes on describing
the atrocities that befell her and her family.
To most Americans these stories are things that, maybe, you have
heard about or read about. But anyone who grew up in an Armenian
American family will tell you they knew about these stories their whole
life. They may not have always known the specifics, but they always
knew about the pain and hurt and tears. They know there were members of
their family who died. Why did they die? Because they were Armenian.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we commemorate the genocide. It is not
because we cannot let go of history, it is because history will not let
go of us. We know that silence does not bind up wounds, it only leaves
those wounds to fester. Because we understand if Turkey is never held
accountable for the crimes it committed in the past, it only becomes
more certain that those crimes will occur again in the future.
Some in Congress and the White House believe that by speaking out on
the genocide, America would be betraying the Turkish government. By
failing to speak out, we are betraying our own principles as a free
people. We cannot sit idle. We cannot let Turkey hide within a fortress
of lies.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we will be introducing our resolution on the
Armenian genocide. I would like to share an old Armenian saying with
you. The saying is: ``Many a molehill thinks it is a mountain. But the
mountain? Mountains are too busy being mountains, doing mountain-type
things and thinking mountain-type thoughts to worry about what being a
mountain means.''
I think of America as sometimes being a bit like that mountain. We
are a Nation that is so busy with our economy, our culture and
politics, we sometimes forget what it is like to be really an American,
what it means to be an American. And the way I see it, America means
standing up for justice. America means speaking out against injustice.
{time} 1900
That is what I urge all of my colleagues to do, and join me in
recognizing the Armenian genocide and supporting the resolution.
Recognizing inhumanity is the first step toward healing and
understanding. The current tensions between Turkey, Azerbaijan, and
Armenia are deeply rooted in its history, and
[[Page 6090]]
achieving a just and lasting peace and cooperation will only be
possible if the past is acknowledged. But it will not happen on its
own. That's why congressional action on the Armenian Genocide
resolution is so important.
I believe that those of us who stand for human rights and dignity
have a responsibility to remember the victims and the survivors. We
have a responsibility to speak out and to make sure that tragedies like
this are never allowed to happen again.
In remembering the Armenian Genocide, we are making a commitment
against genocide and discrimination. We are making a personal
commitment to speaking out against injustice wherever we see it.
____________________
COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) is recognized for 5 minutes.
General Leave
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here this evening to
honor my Armenian friends, particularly on the eve of the 86th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
The 20th century was one of historic progress, but also horrible
brutality. Throughout the century, America has also been the source of
this progress, as well as the nation of first resort to combat
brutality around the world. The first great American diplomatic and
humanitarian initiative of the 20th century was in response to the
attempted extermination of the Armenian people.
As I did last year on this date, I want to associate my comments with
the comments of the Jerusalem Post which said, ``The 1915 wholesale
massacre of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks remains a core
experience of the Armenian nation. While there is virtually zero
tolerance for Holocaust denial, there is tacit acceptance of the denial
of the Armenian Genocide, in part because the Turks have managed to
structure this debate so that people question whether this really did
happen.''
It is fact that the death of 1.5 million Armenians by execution or
starvation really did happen, and we must not tolerate this denial.
Mr. Speaker, I say we must affirm history, not bury it. We must learn
from history, not reshape it according to the geostrategic needs of the
moment, and we must refuse to be intimidated or other states with
troubled pasts will ask that the American record on their dark chapter
in history be expunged.
As Members of this body, we have an obligation to educate and
familiarize Americans on the Armenian Genocide. In fact, we must assure
that the genocide is remembered so that this human tragedy will not be
repeated.
As we have seen in recent years, genocide and ethnic cleansing
continue to plague nations around the world and, as a great nation, we
must always be attentive and willing to stand against such atrocities.
We must do the right thing and call upon our human decency to
commemorate the Armenian Genocide. We must take our role as the leader
of the Free World seriously and educate people on the systematic and
deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians. We must characterize
this as genocide.
A key element of the record of the American response to this crime
against humanity consists of the reports of our ambassador and his
consular officials throughout what are now central and eastern Turkey.
This record is a priceless tool in the hands of any American concerned
with or responsible for our Nation's ongoing global role to prevent
genocide and ethnic cleansing. Therefore, I will tomorrow will be
introducing a strong bipartisan resolution to bring together all of the
U.S. records on the Armenian Genocide and to provide this collection to
the House Committee on International Relations, the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum, and the Armenian Genocide Museum in Yerevan, Armenia.
U.S. Archives contain extensive documentation of the widespread
opposition to Ottoman Turkey's brutal massacres and deportations. They
also contain records of the unprecedented efforts of the American
people to bring relief to the survivors of the 20th century's first
genocide. In introducing this legislation, we challenge those who will
deny the genocide, past or present. I urge my colleagues to please add
their names as an original cosponsor.
Finally, I would like to close by expressing my sincere hope that we
will have President Bush's support on this initiative. During his
campaign he pledged to properly commemorate the Armenian Genocide. I
have every reason to believe that he will honor that pledge and do what
is right for both the Armenian people and for our historical record.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in
commemorating one of the most appalling violations of human rights in
all of modern history--the eighty-sixth anniversary of the Armenian
genocide.
I want to commend my colleagues Representative Joe Knollenberg of
Michigan and Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the co-chairs
of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, for sponsoring this
special order.
Today, I want to acknowledge this dark moment in history and remember
the Armenian people who tragically lost their lives. We must always
remember tumultuous moments in history when people suffered because
they were different.
The Armenian genocide lasted over an eight-year period from 1915 to
1923. During this time, the Ottoman empire carried out a systematic
policy of eliminating its Christian Armenian population. The Armenian
genocide was the first of the 20th century, but unfortunately, not the
last.
The atrocious acts of annihilation against the Armenian people were
denounced by Paris, London and Washington as war crimes. Even the
Germans, the Ottoman Empire's ally in the First World War, condemned
these heinous acts. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to
Constantinople at the time, vividly documented the massacre of 1.5
million Armenians.
Winston Churchill used the word ``holocaust'' to describe the
Armenian massacres when he said: ``in 1915 the Turkish government began
and ruthlessly carried out the infamous general massacre and
deportation of Armenians in Asia minor . . . [the Turks were]
massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians--men, women, and
children together; whole districts blotted out in one administrative
holocaust--these were beyond human redress.''
This orchestrated extermination of a people is contrary to the values
the United States espouses. We are a nation which strictly adheres to
the affirmation of human rights everywhere and cannot dispute a
horrendous historical fact by ignoring what so many witnessed and
survived.
Recognition and acceptance of any misdeed are necessary steps towards
its extinction. Without acceptance there is no remorse, and without
remorse, there is no catharsis and pardon.
Even as recently as the last year of this millennium, the United
States, together with many European nations, took active part in
putting a stop to the genocidal events in Kosovo. It demonstrates that
we are willing to risk our lives in order to remain true to our long
tradition of intolerance to tyranny and injustice. We cannot remain
silent and turn our face away from similar events that took place
against the Armenian people.
Of course, we all want to forget these horrific tragedies in our
history and bury them in the past. However, it is only through painful
process of acknowledging and remembering that we can keep similar dark
moments from happening in the future.
At the end of my statement, I have included several quotes from
prominent world leaders and political figures, including several U.S.
presidents, who describe and sadly affirm what happened to the 1.5
million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire eighty-six years ago.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that as we take a moment
to reflect upon the hardships endured by the Armenians, we also
acknowledge that in the face of adversity the Armenian people have
persevered. The survivors of the genocide and their descendants
[[Page 6091]]
have made great contributions to every country in which they have
settled--including the United States, where Armenians have made their
mark in business, the professions and our cultural life.
Quotes Regarding the Armenian Genocide from Various World Leaders and
Prominent Political Figures
``The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable
brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the
Armenians were the first people of the last century to have
endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a
genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all
decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and
lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes
against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that
our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the
Armenian people.''--George W. Bush Jr., June 2, 2000, letter
to the members of the Armenian Assembly.
``[We join] Armenians around the world [as we remember] the
terrible massacres suffered in 1915-1923 at the hands of the
rulers of the Ottoman Empire. The United States responded to
this crime against humanity by leading diplomatic and private
relief efforts.''--George W. Bush Sr., April 20, 1990, speech
in Orlando, Florida.
``Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the
genocide of the Cambodians which followed it, . . . the
lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.''--Ronald
Reagan, April 22, 1981, proclamation.
``It is generally not known in the world that, in the years
preceding 1916, there was a concerted effort made to
eliminate all the Armenian people, probably one of the
greatest tragedies that ever befell any group. And there
weren't any Nuremberg trials.''--Jimmy Carter, May 16, 1978,
White House ceremony.
``The association of Mount Ararat and Noah, the staunch
Christians who were massacred periodically by the Mohammedan
Turks, and the Sunday School collections over fifty years for
alleviating their miseries--all cumulate to impress the name
Armenian on the front of the American mind.''--Herbert
Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, 1952.
``. . . the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the
war, and the failure to act against Turkey is to condone it .
. . the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror
means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the
world is mischievous nonsense.''--Theodore Roosevelt, May 11,
1918, letter to Cleveland Hoadley Dodge.
``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these
deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a
whole race; they understood this well, and, in their
conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to
conceal the fact. . . . I am confident that the whole history
of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.
The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost
insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian
race in 1915.''--Henry Morgenthau, Sr., U.S. Ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, 1919.
``These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who
should have been made to account for the millions of our
Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from
their homes and massacred, have been restive under the
Republican rule.''--Mustafa ``Ataturk'' Kemal, founder of the
modern Turkish Republic in 1923 and revered throughout
Turkey, in an interview published on August 1, 1926 in The
Los Angeles Examiner, talking about former Young Turks in his
country.
``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the
Armenians?''--Adolf Hitler, while persuading his associates
that a Jewish holocaust would be tolerated by the west.
``It was not war. It was most certainly massacre and
genocide, something the world must remember . . . We will
always reject any attempt to erase its record, even for some
political advantage.''--Yossi Beilin, Israeli Deputy Foreign
Minister, April 27, 1994 on the floor of the Knesset in
response to a TV interview of the Turkish Ambassador.
``Mr. Speaker, with mixed emotions we mark the 50th
anniversary of the Turkish genocide of the Armenian people.
In taking notice of the shocking events in 1915, we observe
this anniversary with sorrow in recalling the massacres of
Armenians and with pride in saluting those brave patriots who
survived to fight on the side of freedom during World War
I.''--Gerald Ford, addressing the U.S. House of
Representatives.
``Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to
thoroughly liquidate (grundlich aufzaumen) its internal foes,
i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby
disturbed by foreign intervention.''--Talat Pasha, one of the
three rulers of wartime in the Ottoman Empire in a
conservation with Dr. Mordtmann of the German Embassy in June
1915.
``What on earth do you want? The question is settled. There
are no more Armenians.''--Talat said this after the German
Ambassador persistently brought up the Armenian question in
1918.
``In an attempt to carry out its purpose to resolve the
Armenian question by the destruction of the Armenian race,
the Turkish government has refused to be deterred neither by
our representations, nor by those of the American Embassy,
nor by the delegate of the Pope, nor by the threats of the
Allied Powers, nor in deference to the public opinion of the
West representing one-half of the world.''--Count Wolff-
Metternich, German Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, July 10,
1916, cable to the German Chancellor.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the
Congressional Armenian Caucus and the representative of a thriving
community of Armenian-Americans, I join many of my colleagues today to
recognize the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
This terrible human tragedy must not be forgotten. Like the
Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands as a tragic example of the
human suffering that results from hatred and intolerance.
One-and-a-half-million Armenian people were massacred by the Ottoman
Turkish Empire between 1915 and 1923. More than 500,000 Armenians were
exiled from their ancestral homeland. A race of people was nearly
eliminated.
It would be an even greater tragedy to forget the Armenian Genocide.
To not recognize the horror of such events almost assures their
repetition in the future.
Our statements today are intended to preserve the memory of the
Armenian loss, and to remind the world that the Turkish government
still refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The truth of this
tragedy can never and should never be denied.
I would like to commend the Armenian-American community as it
continues to thrive and provide assistance and solidarity to its
countrymen and women abroad. The Armenian-American community is bound
together by strong generational and family ties, an enduring work ethic
and a proud sense of ethnic heritage. Today we recall the tragedy of
their past, not to place blame, but to answer a fundamental question,
``Who remembers the Armenians?''
Our commemoration of the Armenian Genocide speaks directly to that,
and I answer, we do.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the victims
of one of history's unacknowledged tragedies--the Armenian Genocide.
Today marks the 86th anniversary of this tragedy that lasted from 1915
to 1923.
April 24, 1915 is remembered and commemorated each year by the
Armenian community and by people of conscience throughout the world. On
this day, the rulers of the Ottoman empire began the systematic and
ruthless extermination of the Armenian minority in Turkey. By the end
of the Terror, more than a million Armenian men, women, and children
had been massacred and more than half a million others had been
expelled from the homeland that their forbears had inhabited for three
millennia.
The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact. The Republic of Turkey
has adamantly refused to acknowledge that the Genocide happened on its
soil but the evidence is irrefutable. In 1915, England, France and
Russia jointly issued a statement charging the Ottoman Empire with ``a
crime against humanity.'' Professor Raphael Lemkin, a holocaust
survivor, is the key historical figure in making genocide a crime under
international law. He coined the term ``genocide'' and was the first to
characterize the atrocities of 1915-1923 as the ``Armenian Genocide.''
We understand that there is a difference between the Turkish people
and the government of the Ottoman Turks. In fact, we know that during
the massacres there were Turks who tried to save Armenians at the cost
of their own lives. But our alliance with Turkey should not deter us
from learning the lessons of past mistakes.
If we ignore the lessons of the Armenian Genocide, we are destined to
repeat those same mistakes. The horrible conflicts in Sudan, Sierra
Leone, and East Timor remind us that we must do more to prevent the
systematic slaughter of innocent people. We must learn from the past
and never forget the victims of the Armenian genocide.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn memorial to the
estimated 1.5 million men, women, and children who lost their lives
during the Armenian Genocide. As in the past I am pleased to join so
many distinguished House colleagues on both sides of the aisle in
ensuring that the horrors wrought upon the Armenian people are never
repeated.
On April 24, 1915, over 200 religious, political, and intellectual
leaders of the Armenian community were brutally executed by the Turkish
government in Istanbul. Over the course of the next 8 years, this war
of ethnic genocide against the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire
took the lives of over half the world's Armenian population.
[[Page 6092]]
Sadly, there are some people who still deny the very existence of
this period which saw the institutionalized slaughter of the Armenian
people and dismantling of Armenian culture. To those who would question
these events, I point to the numerous reports contained in the U.S.
National Archives detailing the process that systematically decimated
the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. However, old records are
too easily forgotten--and dismissed. That is why we come together every
year at this time: to remember in words what some may wish to file away
in archives. This genocide did take place, and these lives were taken.
That memory must keep us forever vigilant in our efforts to prevent
these atrocities from ever happening again.
I am proud to note that Armenian immigrants found, in the United
States, a country where their culture could take root and thrive. Most
Armenians in America are children or grandchildren of the survivors,
although there are still survivors amongst us. In my district in
Northwest Indiana, a vibrant Armenian-American community has developed
and strong ties to Armenia continue to flourish. My predecessor in the
House, the late Adam Benjamin, was of Armenian heritage, and his
distinguished service in the House serves as an example to the entire
Northwest Indiana community. Over the years, members of the Armenian-
American community throughout the United States have contributed
millions of dollars and countless hours of their time to various
Armenian causes. Of particular note are Mrs. Vicki Hovanessian and her
husband Dr. Raffi Hovanessian, residents of Indiana's First
Congressional District, who have continually worked to improve the life
in Armenia, as well as in Northwest Indiana. Three other Armenian-
American families in my congressional district, Dr. Aram and Seta
Semerdjian and Sonya Doumanian, and Ara and Rosy Yeretsian, have also
contributed greatly toward charitable works in the United States and
Armenia. Their efforts, together with hundreds of other members of the
Armenian-American community, have helped to finance several important
projects in Armenia, including the construction of new schools, a
mammography clinic, and a crucial roadway connecting Armenia to Nagorno
Karabagh.
In the House, I have tried to assist the efforts of my Armenian-
American constituency by continually supporting foreign aid to Armenia.
This past year, with my support, Armenia received over $90 million of
the $219 million in U.S. aid earmarked for the Southern Cau-
casus. In addition, on April 6, 2001, I joined several of my colleagues
in signing the letter to President Bush urging him to honor his pledge
to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian people have a long and proud history. In the fourth
century, they became the first nation to embrace Christianity. During
World War I, the Ottoman Empire was ruled by an organization known as
the Young Turk Committee, which allied with Germany. Amid fighting in
the Ottoman Empire's eastern Anatolian provinces, the historic
heartland of the Christian Armenians, Ottoman authorities ordered the
deportation and execution of all Armenians in the region. By the end of
1923, virtually the entire Armenian population of Anatolia and western
Armenia had either been killed or deported.
While it is important to keep the lessons of history in mind, we must
also remain committed to protecting Armenia from new and more hostile
aggressors. In the last decade, thousands of lives have been lost and
more than a million people displaced in the struggle between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, over Nagorno-Karabagh. Even now, as we rise to
commemorate the accomplishments of the Armenian people and mourn the
tragedies they have suffered, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and other countries
continue to engage in a debilitating blockade of this free nation.
On March 28th of this year, I testified before Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcom
mittee on the important issue of bringing peace to a troubled area of
the world. I continued my support for maintaining of level funding for
the Southern Caucasus region of the Independent States (IS), and of
Armenia in particular. I also stressed the critical importance of
retaining Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act that restricts U.S.
aid for Azerbaijan as a result of their blockade. Unfortunately,
Armenia is now entering its twelfth year of a blockade, and Section 907
is the one protection afforded it by the Congress. The flow of food,
fuel, and medicine continues to be hindered by the blockade, creating a
humanitarian crisis in Armenia. A repeal of Section 907 would only
serve to legitimize Azerbaijan's illegitimate acts of aggression. I
stand in strong support of Section 907, which sends a clear message
that the United States Congress stands behind the current peace process
and encourages Azerbaijan to work with the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group toward a meaningful and lasting
resolution. In the end, I believe Section 907 will help conclude a
conflict that threatens to destabilize the entire region and places the
Armenian nation in distinct peril.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Joe
Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, for organizing this special order to
commemorate the 86th Anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Their
efforts will not only help bring needed attention to this tragic period
in world history, but also serve to remind us of our duty to protect
basic human rights and freedoms around the world.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we do every year, I rise to
mark April 24, the somber anniversary of one of the great crimes of
modern history: the beginning of the genocide perpetrated against the
Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. During and after World War I, a
government-orchestrated campaign to eliminate the Armenians under
Ottoman rule led to the slaughter of about one and a half million
people. Entire communities were uprooted, as survivors fled their homes
and were forced into exile.
Fortunately for them, the United States offered a haven. In turn,
Armenian refugees gave this country the best they had to offer. Their
contributions in many fields of endeavor have energized and enriched
American culture and politics. Surely Turkey's loss has been America's
gain, as Armenian refugees in the early part of the 20th century and
their progeny have become an inspiring success story.
Turkey has lost in another way: its longstanding campaign of denial
that the atrocities perpetrated during 1915-1923 were a genocide has
not convinced anyone. More and more representative institutions across
the world have openly declared their recognition of the genocide, and
their number will grow. By refusing to acknowledge what the rest of the
world sees, Turkey has stunted its own development and complicated its
ability to come to terms with its own past, present, and future.
As we soberly mark April 24 this year, there is at least reason to
hope for progress on a front important to all Armenians. The OSCE-
brokered negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh finally seems to be making
headway. Though the details remain confidential, the recent meeting
between Armenia's President Kocharian and Azerbaijan's President Aliev
in Key West, Florida apparently went well enough for the OSCE Minsk
Group to prepare a new peace proposal that will be presented to the
parties in Geneva in June. Much hard bargaining surely lies ahead.
Nevertheless, for the first time in years, we can allow ourselves of
bit of optimism about the prospects for peace in a very troubled and
important region.
Mr. Speaker, nothing can compensate for the loss of so many Armenians
last century. But a prospering Armenia, at peace with its neighbors,
and giving free rein to the natural abilities of this talented people,
would mitigate the pain and sorrow we feel today.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on the 86th anniversary of
the Armenian Genocide, to lend my voice to this important debate
remembering the Armenian Genocide. While Turkey's brutal campaign
against the Armenian people was initiated almost a century ago, its
impact lives on in the hearts of all freedom-loving people. That is why
we must continue to speak about it. We must remind the American people
of the potential for such atrocities against ethnic groups, because
history lessons that are not learned are too often repeated.
The Armenian Genocide, conceived and carried out by the Ottoman
Empire between 1915 and 1923, resulted in the deportation of 2 million
Armenians from their homeland and the ultimate slaughter of 1.5 million
of those people. The continued tensions in the Cau
casus region are rooted in this history, and until they are
forthrightly acknowledged among world leaders, the prospects for
resolution remain dim.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize history, and to
demonstrate that history is unkind to that abuse either rules of war or
basic human dignity. I have fought in a war and understand each side
feels compelled for its own reasons to fight. When that fight extends
to civilian populations it is justifiable to both examine and condemn
such occurrences.
The U.S. has some of the most extensive documentation of this
genocide against the Armenian people, and there has been no shortage of
corroboration by other countries. The Armenian genocide has been
recognized by the United Nations and nations around the globe, and the
U.S. came to the aid of the survivors. But perhaps we were not
vociferous enough in holding the perpetrators of this genocide
accountable, and for shining the light of international shame upon
them. For it was only a few decades later that we saw another genocide
against humanity: the Holocaust. That is why we must continue to tell
the story
[[Page 6093]]
of Armenian genocide. It is a painful reminder that such vicious
campaigns against a people have occurred, and that the potential for
such human brutality exists in this world. We must remain mindful of
the continued repression of Armenians today, and challenge those who
would persecute these people. If we do not, future generations may be
destined to relive such horrors against humanity.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, today, I join my colleagues in commemoration
of the 86th anniversary of beginning of the Armenian genocide. On April
24, 1915, under the direction of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, a campaign
of Armenian extermination began. Armenian religious, political, and
intellectual leaders from Istanbul were arrested and exiled--silencing
the leading representatives of the Armenian community in the Ottoman
Empire. From 1915 until 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, with
another 500,000 forced into exile in Russia, ending a period of 2,500
years of an Armenian presence in their historic homeland. Today we
remember this terrible period in human history, and commend the
Armenian people for their ongoing struggle to live peacefully in their
historic homeland.
Like the Jewish and Cambodian holocausts, and more recently, the
Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the Armenian genocide stands out as
one of the world's most morally reprehensible acts. Unfortunately, some
American Presidents have chosen not to recognize this atrocity as what
it truly was--the attempted extermination of an ethnic group.
Continuing our good relationship with Turkey has repeatedly been cited
as the reason not to use the word genocide. Mr. Speaker, there is no
word other than genocide to describe the systematic murder of a
million-and-a-half people.
Earlier this month, I joined 107 of my colleagues in asking President
Bush to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide by using the word
genocide, and I hope that Mr. Bush will become the first American
president in 20 years to do that.
On this day, we remember those Armenians who died 86 years ago and
send a message to the world that we will never forget what happened
during that terrible period in history and that we reaffirm our resolve
to ensure that no nation will ever again have the opportunity to
participate in mass genocide.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, today, April 24, 2001, we solemnly mark the
76th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. On this day in 1915, three
hundred Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in
Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were rounded up, deported and
killed on the orders of the Ottoman Imperial Government. By 1923, one
and a half million Armenians had been killed and roughly two million
deported.
Our country was one of the first major powers of the day to condemn
the acts of the Ottoman Empire. Other nations lent their voices to the
outcry. Nations allied to the Ottoman Empire, such as Germany and
Austria, and those who found themselves politically opposed to the
Empire, like Great Britain, France, and Russia, expressed their
consternation at the clear policy of genocide.
Today, the United States should reassert its condemnation of the
ignominious acts of over three quarters of a century ago. The Armenians
Genocide has an infamous place in history as the first mass genocide of
the 20th century. Tragically, it was not the last act of genocide the
world witnessed that century. Had the Armenians Genocide been fully
investigated and condemned in the years after its duration, perhaps.
citizens of the world would have reacted sooner to the mass ethnic
cleansings that followed.
I am sure that the victims of the Armenian Genocide would want us to
not simply remember the historic travesty that befell them, but would
want us to learn from these lessons of xenophobia and inhumanity. We
remember the Armenian genocide, today, and we affirm its historical
existence, not to inflame the passions of our friends in the modern day
Republic of Turkey, but to remind all Americans of the horrible
consequences of ethnic violence. Turks of all backgrounds heroically
fought against the policy of genocide adopted by extremist elements
controlling the Ottoman government during World War I. We commemorate
their heroism and humanity just as firmly in our act of remembrance
today.
Mr. Speaker, we must hope and pray that genocide never again is
visited upon the human race. As we grow closer in commerce and
communication, may we also grow wiser in our understanding of world
history. May we heed the lessons that are there to be learned. And may
we never forget the worst aspects of that history, so that tomorrow's
history may be all the better.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, for the third consecutive
year, to commemorate a people who despite murder, hardship, and
betrayal have persevered. April 24, 2001, marks the 86th anniversary of
the Armenian Genocide; unbelievably, an event that many still fail to
recognize.
Throughout three decades in the late nineteenth and early 20th
centuries, millions of Armenians were systematically uprooted from
their homeland of three thousands years and deported or massacred. From
1894 through 1896, three hundred thousand Armenians were ruthlessly
murdered. Again in 1909, thirty thousand Armenians were massacred in
Cilicia, and their villages were destroyed.
On April 24, 1915, two hundred Armenian religious, political, and
intellectual leaders were arbitrarily arrested, taken to Turkey and
murdered. This incident marks a dark and solemn period in the history
of the Armenian people. From 1915 to 1923, the Ottoman Empire launched
a systematic campaign to exterminate Armenians. In eight short years,
more than 1.5 million Armenians suffered through atrocities such as
deportation, forced slavery, and torture. Most were ultimately
murdered.
I have had the privilege of joining my colleagues in a letter to the
President asking that the U.S. officially commemorate the victims of
the Armenian Genocide and honor its 1.5 million victims. As a cosponsor
and proponent of H. Res. 596 during the 106th Congress, I was deeply
disturbed by the decision that prevented the House of Representatives
from considering this resolution last October. This resolution
recognized the suffering of nearly two million Armenians from 1915
through 1923, as the Ottoman Empire strove to wipe out an entire race
of men, women, and children. Those who were not murdered were
effectively removed from their homes of 2,500 years in what is now
modern day Turkey.
The resolution called upon the President of the United States to do
three things: (1) Ensure that U.S. foreign policy reflects
consideration and sensitivity for human rights, ethnic cleansing, and
genocide documented in U.S. records relating to the Armenian Genocide
and the consequences of the Turkish court's failure to enforce
judgments against those responsible for committing genocide; (2)
recognize, during his annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on
April 24th, that this was a systematic and deliberate annihilation of
1.5 million people, and reflect upon the United States' effort to
intervene on behalf of Armenians during the genocide; and (3) in his
annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, emphasize that the
modern day Republic of Turkey did not conduct the Armenian Genocide,
which was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. This was the second time
H. Res. 596 had been pulled from consideration, despite pledges by the
leadership that the U.S. would go on record to affirm their support for
the Armenian genocide.
We should exhibit the same support as many of our friends in the
international community who have refused to be bullied into silence.
The European Parliament and the United Nations have recognized and
reaffirmed the Armenian genocide as historical fact, as have the
Russian and Greek parliaments, the Canadian House of Commons, the
Lebanese Chamber of Deputies, and the French National Assembly. It is
time for America to venerate Armenians who suffered at the hands of the
Ottoman Empire. And let me stress that I am not speaking of the
government of modern day Turkey, but rather its predecessor, which many
of Turkey's present day leaders helped to remove from power.
As I have in the past, as a member of the Congressional Armenian
Caucus, I will continue to work with my colleagues and with the
Armenian-Americans in my district to promote investment and prosperity
in Armenia. And, I sincerely, hope that this year, the U.S. will have
the opportunity and courage to speak in support of the millions of
Armenians who suffered because of their heritage.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to take part in an important
annual event in the House of Representatives, the commemoration of the
Armenian Genocide. I am proud that dozens of Members gather each year
to mark this dark chapter in human history. Such devotion to memory is
not a trivial matter. We know this to be true because, even today,
there are those who would vainly try to deny the past, in order to
influence the future.
We, as a moral people, cannot allow such wicked efforts to prosper.
Even passive acceptance of such lies would be tantamount to
participating in a second genocide. As we all know, surely and
irrefutably, the first Armenian Genocide, occurred between 1915 and
1923, and resulted in the deliberate death of 1.5 million human souls,
killed for the crime of their own existence. The second Armenian
Genocide, which every year we must struggle against, is the ongoing
effort by some to deny reality, to deny history, to deny one of
humanity's darkest hours.
[[Page 6094]]
Mr. Speaker, the Armenian Genocide marked a critical point in
history. We can look back now, with the wisdom of hindsight, and see in
the deaths of a million and a half Armenians the first signs of the
breathtaking cruelty of the last century. We can see technology and
hatred converging toward the creation of a new phenomenon in human
history, the apotheosis of evil, the creation of genocide, the
organized attempt to annihilate an entire people.
The Ottoman Empire's campaign to eliminate the entire Armenian
population existing within its borders was no accident, no mistake made
by a bureaucrat. Genocide was official policy and 1.5 million Armenians
died as a result. They were starved and shot, deported and humiliated.
They were old and young, innocent and blameless. They were killed, not
for what they had one, but for who they were.
Mr. Speaker, when we assemble here, in the House of Representatives,
and remember the Armenian Genocide, we stand as witnesses to humanity's
worst potential and promise to do better. To not stand by, impassive
and confused in the face of horror. We commit ourselves to our common
humanity and the precious rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Genocide is incomprehensible, but not unstoppable.
For genocide to be removed from our world and banished forever, we
must begin with teaching our children what has happened, and recalling,
publicly and clearly, the unprecedented slaughter of the innocent in
the 20th century; first in Armenian and then throughout Europe. As a
just and honorable nation, we must do more than shrug our shoulders at
atrocities. We must bear witness, year after year, and in doing so,
commit ourselves to preventing history's repetition.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are here today for one simple
reason: to remind our nation that eighty-five years ago one-third of
the Armenian people, 1.5 million men, women and children, were put to
death for the crime of their own birth. To deny this reality is to deny
that genocide can happen again.
I want to thank America's citizens of Armenian descent for their
unfailing commitment to their people's history and their unwavering
struggle to ensure that the memory and history of their peoples'
darkest hour is never lost. Thanks to them, the Armenian Genocide and
its lessons will not be forgotten in our time and in our nation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't thank and commend
my colleagues, Congressmen Joe Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, the co-
Chairmen of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues. Thanks to
their leadership, this House will again honorably fulfill America's
commitment to memory and justice.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in this commemoration
of the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Each year, I join Members
of Congress from both sides of the political spectrum to take part in
this commemoration. We join together to raise awareness of a chapter in
history so brutal and violent that it sadly deserves the horrific title
of ``Genocide.''
Each year, as I rise to pay tribute to over 1.5 million Armenians who
were killed in this tragedy, I am amazed at how the news of the
Armenian Genocide was suppressed at the time and then shrouded from
public view for generations. We all remember the question posed by
Adolf Hitler at the beginning of World War II--he said ``who remembers
the Armenians?'' Today, for the sake of justice and human rights, we
answer: ``We do.''
The events that took place between 1915 to 1923, when Armenian men,
women and children were systematically mistreated and killed, represent
one of the darkest chapters of human history. Armenians were tortured,
had their property confiscated, and died from malnutrition and
starvation during long, forced marches from their homeland in Eastern
Turkey.
When tragedies of this magnitude take place, we must ensure that they
are not forgotten. Let us teach our children that attempted systematic
annihilation of a people must be a fixture of the past. Let us teach
our children to value diversity and promote peace and understanding.
Theirs can be a better world than the world of the Armenians between
1915 and 1923--but only if they truly understand the cruelty that
humankind can wreak upon its own.
There are survivors of the Armenian Genocide in my district, and the
horror of this ordeal is forever etched in their collective memories.
Every year, survivors participate in commemoration ceremonies in
Boston, Lowell, and other parts of Massachusetts' Merrimack Valley. The
commemoration offers participants an opportunity to remind the media
and citizens around the world of the tragedy suffered by the Armenians
at the hands of the Turkish empire.
I represent a large and active Armenian community in my Congressional
district. They are hard-working and proud of their heritage. With great
respect for them and for Armenians throughout the world, let us renew
our commitment here today that the American people will oppose any and
all instances of genocide.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, we join here today to honor
the memory of the Armenians who were massacred and the Armenian
survivors who fled into exile during the Ottoman Empire's genocide from
1915 to 1923. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire began what can be
called nothing less than a policy of ethnic cleansing. The U.S.
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, stated that he was
confident the treatment he observed of the Armenian people from 1915 to
1923 was the greatest atrocity the human race had ever seen. ``I am
confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such
horrible episode as this,'' Morgenthau stated.
We are very fortunate and blessed to have so many Armenian people
connected to our Nation. In my home state, the Armenian community is
great, and so too are the gifts and talents they bring to Rhode Island.
Our Nation must continue to take the time to educate and remember the
atrocities suffered by over one and a half million Armenians during the
Armenian Genocide. Future generations must understand what the
community has been through to truly appreciate and honor all the
talents they share with our Nation.
Over 86 years later after the tragedy began, Turkey still denies the
Armenian Genocide despite overwhelming documentation of these
atrocities. We cannot allow such ethnic violence and genocide to simply
be covered up or ignored. Continued Congressional support to provide
assistance to the people residing in Nagorno-Karabagh and upholding
section 907 of the Freedom Support Act sends a strong, powerful message
to Turkey that we will not allow Armenian communities to be threatened
again.
The Armenian Genocide serves as a reminder to us all that we must do
more to protect peace and human rights for all those around the world.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join voices with my colleagues today to
recognize the 86th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
Between 1894 and 1923, approximately two million Armenians were
massacred, persecuted,and exiled by the Turk government of the Ottoman
Empire. Despite all the facts, eyewitness accounts, recognition by
countries throughout the world, and the findings of their own post-war
courts, the government of Turkey still refuses to acknowledge the
genocide ever occurred. We cannot allow such blatant disregard and
denial to go on. Earlier this year, France's National Assembly passed
legislation labeling the Armenian Genocide as genocide. We in the
United States should do no less.
I well remember a speech made by Elie Wiesel at the White House in
which he described the perils of indifference to suffering: ``In a way,
to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being
inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger or
hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a
great symphony . . . because one is angry at the injustice that one
witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may
elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it.
Indifference elicits no response . . . Indifference is always the
friend of the enemy, for it benefits the agressor--never his victim,
whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political
prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not
to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering
them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying
their humanity we betray our own.
Let us all take a moment to reflect on the anniversary of the
genocide of the Armenian people. We have a duty to those who have died
and to those who survived to help preserve this memory forever. We must
raise our thoughts and our voices on behalf of those who have suffered
and died, and pray that such suffering is never again visited on any
people anywhere on the Earth.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the
1.5 million victims of the Armenian genocide, who were systematically
slaughtered solely because of their race. While there is never a
justification for genocide, in this case there also regrettably has
never been an apology, and the criminals were never brought to justice.
Such an unconscionable act, however, can never be forgotten. It is our
duty to remember.
I also rise in tribute to the Armenian people who have fully
recovered from this atrocity by maintaining their proud transitions and
culture,
[[Page 6095]]
becoming an integral part of America, and nine years ago, forming the
Republic of Armenia.
The Ottoman Empire's last, desperate act was one of profound cruelty,
tragic and gruesome beyond description. During World War I--a
tumultuous, revolutionary time of great societal transformations and
uncertain futures on the battlefields and at home--desperate Ottoman
leaders fell back on the one weapon that could offer hope of personal
survival. It is a weapon that is still used today, fed by fear,
desperation, and hatred. It transforms the average citizen into a
zealot, no longer willing to listen to reason. This weapon is, of
course, nationalism. Wrongly directed, nationalism can easily result in
ethnic strife and senseless genocide, committed in the name of false
beliefs preached by immoral, irresponsible, tyrannical leaders.
Today I rise not to speak of the present, but in memory of the
victims of the past, who suffered needlessly in the flames of vicious,
destructive nationalism. On April 24, 1915, the leaders of the Ottoman
government tragically chose to systematically exterminate an entire
race of people. In this case, as in the case of Nazi Germany,
nationalism became a weapon of cruelty and evil. Let us never forget
the 1.5 million Armenians who died at the whim of wicked men and their
misguided followers.
The story of the Armenian genocide is in itself appalling. It is
against everything our government--and indeed all governments who
strive for justice--stands for; it represents the most wicked side of
humanity. What makes the Armenian story even more unfortunate is
history has repeated itself in all corners of the world, and lessons
that should have been learned long ago have been ignored. We must not
forget the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, or
Bosnia. It is our duty that by remembering the millions who have been
victims of genocide, we pledge ourselves to preventing such acts from
repeating themselves.
It is an honor and privilege to represent a large and active Armenian
population, many who have family members who were persecuted by their
Ottoman Turkish rulers. Michigan's Armenian-American community has done
much to further our state's commercial, political, and intellectual
growth, just has it as done in communities across the country. And so I
also rise today to honor to the triumph of the Armenian people, who
have endured adversity and bettered our country.
The Armenian people have faced great trials and tests throughout
their history. They have proved their resilience in the face of tragedy
before, and I have no doubt that they will endure today's tragic
occurrence, recognize that a madman's bullet can never put an end to a
people's dreams, and keep moving forward on the path of peace and
freedom.
Mr. Speaker, let no one, friend or foe, ever deny that the Armenian
genocide occurred. Let us not forget the heinous nature of the crimes
committed against the Armenian people. Let us promise to the world, as
American citizens and citizens of the world, that we will never again
allow such a crime to be perpetrated, and will not tolerate the forces
of misguided nationalism and hate.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memories
of those who perished in the Armenian Genocide.
April 24, 1915 is remembered and solemnly commemorated each year by
the Armenian community. On this date, eighty-six years ago, a group of
Armenian political, religious, and intellectual leaders were arrested
in Constantinople, sent further inland, and killed. In the following
years, Armenians living under Ottoman rule were deprived of their
freedom, property, and ultimately, their lives. By 1923, over a million
Armenians had been massacred, and another half a million more people
had been deported.
This genocide, which was preceded by a series of massacres in 1894-
1896 and in 1909 and was followed by another series of massacres in
1920, essentially dispersed Armenians and removed them from their
historic homeland. The persecution of the Armenian people left
psychological scars among the survivors and their families. No person
should have to endure the trauma and horrors that they did.
On May 2, 1995, I had the honor of meeting the former Armenian
Ambassador to the United States, Rouben Robert Shugarian, at a
Congressional reception commemorating the 80th anniversary of the
Armenian genocide. Ambassador Shugarian introduced me to several
survivors of the 1915 genocide. This experience was a deeply moving and
personal reminder of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished during the
systematic extermination by the Ottoman Empire.
It is important that we not only commemorate the Armenian Genocide,
but also honor the memory of others who lost their lives during this
time. We must remember this horrific and shameful period in world
history so that it will never be repeated again.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 86th anniversary of the
beginning of the Armenian genocide. I rise today to commemorate this
terrible chapter in human history, and to help ensure that it will
never be forgotten.
On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian
community and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being
charged with crimes. Soon after the government deported most Armenians
from Turkish Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria.
Many deportees never reached that destination.
From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation
or disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish
forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands
of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining
Armenians from Turkey.
The U.S. Ambassador in Constantinople at the time, Henry Morgenthau,
stated ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race
contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and
persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the
sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.''
We mark this anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide
because this tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all
humanity. It is our duty to remember, to speak out and to teach future
generations about the horrors of genocide and the oppression and
terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people.
Sadly, we cannot say that such atrocities are history. We have only
to recall the ``killing fields'' of Cambodia, mass killings in Bosnia
and Rwanda, and ``ethnic cleansing'' in Kosovo to see that the threat
of genocide persists. We must renew our commitment never to remain
indifferent in the face of such assaults on humanity.
We also remember this day because it is a time for us to celebrate
the contribution of the Armenian community in America--including
hundreds of thousands in California--to the richness of our character
and culture. The strength they have displayed in overcoming tragedy to
flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Their success is
moving testimony to the truth that tyranny and evil cannot extinguish
the vitality of the human spirit.
The Armenian struggle continues to this day. But now with an
independent Armenian state, the United States has the opportunity to
contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's
democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support
Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system.
Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi Holocaust, once remarked
``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will
continue to remember the victims of the 1915-23 genocide because, in
the words of the philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in commemorating the
Armenian Genocide.
Today we solemnly remember the April 24, 1915 onslaught of the
Ottoman Government's 8-year campaign of terror against its Armenian
population. We mourn the systematic destruction of Armenian
communities, the murder of one- and-a-half-million men, women, and
children, and the forced deportation of over nearly one million others.
This somber anniversary, however, also bears a stark warning. Eighty-
six years ago, the world's willingness to ignore the bloodshed against
Armenians set the stage for its complacency during Hitler's attempt to
annihilate the Jews. Today, the world's resolve against historical
revisionism of the Armenian Genocide will be a key determinant of our
ability to stand against similar attempts at Holocaust denial.
I am proud to acknowledge the Armenian Americans in my district and
across the country who have dedicated themselves to preserving the
memory of those who were persecuted, and to publicizing the United
States records documenting this period. I join them and my colleagues
in renewing our commitment to stand against governments that persecute
their own people, and to insuring that no act of genocide will ever
again go unnoticed or unmourned.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues in
commemorating the Armenian Genocide, one of the great tragedies of the
twentieth century. I also want to thank Representatives Pallone and
Knollenberg for calling special orders tonight to remember this
terrible event.
[[Page 6096]]
Eighty-six years ago, in the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Genocide
began with the arrest and murder of many of the Armenian community's
religious, political, and intellectual leaders. Their deaths would be
followed by the massacre of one-and-a-half-million men, women, and
children, and the displacement and deportation of hundreds of thousands
more.
Today, we pause to remember and mourn their loss. As we enter a new
century, we carry with us, seared into our memories, the bloodshed of
the last hundred years. That century added a new and terrible word to
our vocabularies--genocide, the attempt to wipe out not merely a life,
but a people and a culture. The Armenian Genocide stands as the first
chilling example of that crime against humanity.
History matters. It must be remembered, and it must be acknowledged.
If our past is a blank slate, we have no identity, no sense of place or
of self, and nothing from which to learn. Failure to remember,
acknowledge, and learn from the Armenian Genocide would only increase
the scope of this terrible tragedy. The murders of a million-and-half
people must not be compounded by the erasure of their memory. That
would be one more act of genocide, and that we can never allow.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the Armenian
victims of the genocide brought upon them by the Ottoman Turkish Empire
and to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey,
Congressman Frank Pallone, and the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman
Joe Knollenberg, for organizing this special order today so that
Members of the House may take the time to remember this solemn
occasion.
April 24 marks the beginning of the systematic and deliberate
campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish Empire in 1915.
Over the following 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians were tortured and
murdered, and more than half a million were forced from their homeland
into exile. Regrettably, in the years since, the Turkish Government has
refused to apologize for these atrocious acts, or even acknowledge the
Armenian Genocide, despite overwhelming documentation.
By recognizing the victims of the genocide, we commemorate both those
who perished and those who were able to begin a new life in communities
like my home State of Rhode Island, where many Armenian families
continue to thrive today. I hope that recognition of this atrocity will
help erase the remnants of an era in which propaganda and deceit held
precedence over truth and human dignity. Our nation must never allow
oppression and persecution to pass without condemnation.
Armenians are a strong, resilient people, struggling to heal the
wounds of the past. However, until the Armenian genocide is officially
acknowledged, these wounds will remain. We should not deny the Armenian
people their rightful place in history. To do so would dishonor them,
and blight our understanding of the past. It is the best interests of
our nation and the entire global community to remember the past and
learn from history.
Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the
living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all across the
world have clung to their identity and have prospered in new
communities. The State of Rhode Island is fortunate to be home to such
an organized and active community, whose members contribute and
participate in every aspect of civic life.
As an ardent supporter of the Armenian-American community throughout
my public service career, I am proud to honor the victims of the
genocide by paying tribute to their memory, showing compassion for
those who have suffered from such heinous prejudice, and never
forgetting the pain that they have endured. Let us never forget their
tragedy, and ensure that such crimes are never repeated.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our two distinguished
cochairmen of the Caucus on Armenian Issues, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) for arranging this special order today. I also want to extend
my concerns to the Armenian-American community on this somber occasion.
Armenian-Americans have every reason to be proud of their heritage
and their accomplishments in this country as well as their efforts in
preserving their culture their attention to the memory of their
matryrs. I join Armenians and their friends throughout the world who
gather this week to honor the memories of the countless men, women, and
children who perished 86 years ago in the Armenian Genocide.
Future generations should not be around to forget such horrible
crimes, much less to deny their existence. Moreover, we can not say
with any certainty that the atrocities of the American Genocide are
left to history. We only have to recall the Holocaust, the killing
fields of Cambodia, the massacres in Rwanda, and the ethnic cleansing
in Bosnian and East Timor. That is why, in addition to never forgetting
the first genocide of the 20th century, we must make certain that the
fate that befell the Armenian people will never again be repeated.
Yet there are many governments which fail to acknowledge the
existence of the Armenian Genocide which is a great disservice to all
peoples who have suffered persecution and attempted annihilation. It is
important therefore that our nation recognizes the Armenian Holocaust
as an historical fact and history is preserved.
Accordingly, it is fitting that we pause and join in this
commemoration, and asking all Americans to join in it. We must
understand the lessons of the tragedies of this century such as the
Armenian Genocide, and most important to resolve to prevent their
repetition.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the victims
of one of history's most terrible tragedies, the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian community commemorates this atrocity each year on April
24, the day in 1915 when 300 Armenian leaders, intellectuals, and
professionals were rounded up in Constantinople, deported, and killed.
From 1915 through 1923, one-and-a-half-million Armenians had been
massacred, 500,000 more had been deported, and the survivors were
systematically deprived of their property, freedom, and dignity.
In my district, there is a significant population of Armenian
survivors and their families that showed heroic courage and will to
survive in the face of horrendous obstacles and adversities. These
survivors are an important window into the past. It is through their
unforgettable tragedy that we are able to share in their history and
strong heritage.
Mr. Speaker, in the Armenian consciousness, the events of 1915
through 1923 are a vivid and constant presence. I am pleased my
colleagues and I have the opportunity to pay tribute to the Armenian
community in order to ensure the legacy of the genocide is remembered.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today, we remember April 24, 1915 as one of
the darkest days of the 20th century. It was on this day that 300
Armenian leaders, writers, religious figures and professionals in
Constantinople were gathered together, deported, and brutally murdered.
In addition, thousands more Armenian citizens were dragged out of their
homes and murdered in the streets. Remaining citizens were taken from
their homes and marched off to concentration camps in the desert, where
many died of starvation and thirst. Following the horrific events of
April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire systematically deprived Armenians of
their homes, property, freedom, and ultimately, their lives. By 1923,
1.5 million Armenian citizens had been murdered, while half a million
had been deported.
Today, we must overcome the obstacle of denial. To this day, the
Turkish Government continues to deny that the Armenian genocide ever
took place. It is the responsibility of the United States and the
international community to overcome this denial and recognize the
horror that took place between 1915 and 1923. In addition, it is the
duty of all nations of the world to ensure that such atrocities are
never repeated.
The Armenian people have spent the last 10 years courageously
establishing an Independent Republic of Armenia. These efforts are a
testament to the strength and character of the Armenian people. The
United States will continue to work with Armenia to ensure the
establishment of a safe and stable environment in the Caucasus region.
Recently, President Robert Kocharian met with Azerbaijani President
Heydar Aliyev and international mediators from France, Russia and the
United States to discuss peace options on the Karabagh conflict. I am
confident that Albania will work towards a positive outcome in the
Nagorno Karabagh Peace Talks.
Today, I join my colleagues in recognizing the Armenian Genocide of
1915, and while this is indeed a day of mourning, we must also take
this opportunity to celebrate Armenia's commitment towards democracy in
the face of adversity.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in
commemorating the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
On this day I call on my colleagues and on the President to remember
the words of author, Holocaust survivor, and Nobel Peace Prize winner
Elie Wiesel, ``. . . to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest
sin of all . . .''
While few would disagree with these words, we in the U.S. Government
have failed to heed the warning contained within. It is time for the
Government of the United States to do
[[Page 6097]]
what it failed to do 86 years ago and to officially recognize the
slaughter of more than 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman-Turkish
Empire from 1915 to 1923 as a deliberate and systematic attempt to
destroy the Armenian people, their culture and their heritage, as
genocide.
It began with the killing of the community leaders and intellectuals
86 years ago today. That was followed by the disarming and murder of
Armenians serving in the Ottoman-Turkish army. And this was followed by
attacks on Armenian men, women and children, whom the Ottoman-Turks
drove into the desert where they were left to either die of dehydration
or starve.
This deliberate and systematic assault on the Armenian population
would continue for 8 years. Then-U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman-Turkish
Empire, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., witnessed these events first hand and
reported them back to Washington. Later he would write that ``the great
massacres and persecutions of the past are insignificant when compared
to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.''
Despite reports such as this, the United States failed to intervene.
As horrible as not coming to the aid of the Armenian people in 1915
was, what strikes me today is that the United States, 86 years later,
still fails to recognize these events for what they were, genocide.
Last year I joined with 143 of my colleagues in sponsoring H. Res.
398, which would have acknowledged the events in Turkey of 1915 to 1923
as genocide and called on the President to do the same. Yet this
resolution was not allowed to come to a vote on the floor. Even today,
when President Bush issued a statement to commemorate what he called
``one of the great tragedies of history,'' he did not use the word
genocide.
Mr. Speaker, if we fail to acknowledge these events for what they
truly were, we are, as Elie Wiesel has said, ``committing the most
dangerous sin of all.'' In Turkey, Germany, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, we
have either acted too slowly or failed to act at all. How many more
genocides are going to occur before we raise our own awareness of these
events and condemn them for what they truly are.
Mr. Speaker, finally I would like to thank Mr. Knollenberg and Mr.
Pallone, the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues,
for organizing this special order tonight. Recognition and
acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide is an important step toward
defeating that indifferent spirit which has allowed events such as
these to occur again and again. I am glad that I am joined by so many
of my colleagues who share this view tonight.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues tonight in somber
remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. Early in the 20th century, during
World War I and its aftermath, the Ottoman Empire attempted the
complete liquidation of the Armenian population of Eastern Anatolia.
We must come down to the House floor tonight not only to remember
this tragic event, but we must also proclaim that the Armenian Genocide
is an historical fact. There are many who deny that this first genocide
of the 20th century actually took place.
The American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1919 was an
eyewitness. In his memoirs, he said, ``When the Turkish authorities
gave the order for these deportations they were merely giving the death
warrant to an entire race. They understood this well and in their
conversations with me made no particular attempt to conceal this
fact.''
He went on to describe what he saw at the Euphrates River. He said,
as our eyes and ears in the Ottoman Empire, ``I have by no means told
the most terrible details, for a complete narration of the sadistic
orgies of which they, the Armenian men and women, are victims can never
be printed in an American publication. Whatever crimes the most
perverted instincts of the human mind can devise, whatever refinements
of persecution and injustice the most debased imagination can conceive,
became the daily misfortune of the Armenian people.''
We can never forget that 8 days before he invaded Poland, Adolf
Hitler turned to his inner circle and said, ``Who today remembers the
extermination of the Armenians?'' The impunity with which the Turkish
Government acted in annihilating the Armenian people emboldened Adolf
Hitler and his inner circle to carry out the Holocaust of the Jewish
people.
It is time for Turkey to acknowledge this genocide, because only in
that way can the Turkish Government and its people rise above it. The
German Government has been quite forthcoming in acknowledging the
Holocaust, and in doing so it has at least been respected by the
peoples of the world for its honesty. Turkey should follow that example
rather than trying to deny history.
It is also time--indeed it is far overdue--for our Congress to
recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Mr. Speaker, I again call on my colleagues to recognize the Armenian
Genocide and to urge my fellow Americans to remember this tragic event.
____________________
EARTH DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I take this moment to acknowledge
Earth Day. We have made great strides in protecting our treasures,
protecting our natural resources, and in protecting our environment.
So, Mr. Speaker, since the first Earth Day in 1970, Americans have
found many ways to promote the preservation of our environment and to
focus a great deal of attention on the work that is left to be done.
Earth Day has always been a day to celebrate the environment and our
natural heritage. It has also served to mark the importance of
environmental protection and responsible living. As the leaders of this
great Nation, we must collaborate in a bipartisan fashion to promote
environmental policies that make sense to this country. We do not want
to continue to drink water that is contaminated and polluted. We do not
want to breathe smoke-filled air. We do not want to develop life-
threatening diseases from water, air, and other environmental hazards.
Poor environmental management affects everyone, and environmental
justice does, in fact, matter.
We ask, how many children must develop lead poisoning before we get
serious about that issue. Do we want the Nation's most precious animals
to perish from the Earth? Do we want to live in neighborhoods that are
surrounded by nuclear power plants? Do we want to breathe a thick layer
of smog from contaminated air before we feel that a clean air policy is
important? Will there come a time when we must go to the local grocery
store and purchase bottled air?
Many of our urban communities are currently in serious unrest due to
many different environmental problems. Today we must make a new
dedication toward bringing a more proper balance to the widening gap
between community standards based upon their economic status. People in
our poorest communities are struggling for environmental justice, from
Louisiana's ``Cancer Alley'' to the Native American reservations'
nuclear problems to the people along the border in the maquiladora
region, and for the communities where I live on the south and west
sides of Chicago.
Furthermore, millions of people live in housing surrounded by
physical environments that are overburdened with environmental problems
and hazards untold, waste, toxins, dioxins, incinerators, petrochemical
plants, polluted air and unsafe drinking water. These factors all
combine to pose a real and grave threat to the future of our Nation's
public health.
So, as we mark the 31st anniversary of the first Earth Day, we glory
in the progress that has been made, but must strive to continue to
develop strong environmental policies that help protect our Earth.
____________________
COMMEMORATION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor on this very
special and important day to join my colleagues and individuals
throughout the world in commemorating the 86th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide. We must never forget the tragedy of the Armenian
Genocide, and this commemoration makes an important contribution to
making sure that we never do.
When most people hear the word ``genocide'' they immediately think of
Hitler and his persecution of the Jews during World War II. Many
individuals
[[Page 6098]]
are unaware that the first genocide of the 20th century occurred during
World War I and was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the
Armenian people.
Concerned that the Armenian people would move to establish their own
government, the Ottoman Empire embarked on a reign of terror that
resulted in the massacre of over 1.5 million Armenians, men, women and
children. This atrocious crime began on April 15, 1915, when the
Ottoman Empire arrested, exiled, and eventually killed hundreds of
Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders.
Once they had eliminated the Armenian people's leadership, they
turned their attention to the Armenians that were serving in the
Ottoman army. These soldiers were disarmed and placed in labor camps
where they were either starved or executed. The Armenian people,
lacking political leadership and deprived of young, able-bodied men who
could fight against the Ottoman onslaught were then deported from every
region of Turkish Armenia. The images of human suffering from the
Armenian Genocide are graphic and as haunting as the pictures of the
Holocaust.
Why, then, it must be asked, are so many people unaware of the
Armenian Genocide? I believe the answer is found in the international
community's response to this disturbing event or, I should say, lack of
response. At the end of World War I, those responsible for ordering and
implementing the Armenian Genocide were never brought to justice, and
the world casually forgot about the suffering and pain of the Armenian
people, and that proved to be a grave mistake. In a speech that is now
recorded, a speech made by Adolf Hitler just prior to the invasion of
Poland in 1939, he justified his brutal tactics with the infamous
statement, ``Who remembers the extermination of the Armenians?''
Tragically, 6 years later, the Nazis had exterminated 6 million Jews.
Never has the phrase, ``those who forget the past will be destined to
repeat it'' been more applicable. If the international community had
spoken out against this merciless slaughtering of the Armenian people
instead of ignoring it, the horrors of the Holocaust might never have
taken place.
Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 86th anniversary of the Armenian
Genocide, I believe it is time to give this event its rightful place in
history. This afternoon and this evening, let us pay homage to those
who fell victim to the Ottoman oppressors and tell the story, the story
of the forgotten genocide. This, for the sake of the Armenian heritage,
is certainly a story that must be heard.
Armenian Assembly of America
Washington, DC.
The Armenian Assembly of America, Commemoration of the
Armenian Genocide
On April 24, we remember and mourn the victims of the
Armenian Genocide of 1915. Not a single family went
untouched; none were spared the pain of that brutal
slaughter. Because its victims and witnesses were ignored and
its lessons unlearned, the Genocide set the stage for the
Holocaust and the genocides that followed. The 20th century's
first genocide continues to cast its dark shadow over the
21st century.
The Turkish people and the Republic of Turkey should
recognize that it is in their own best interest to come to
terms with the role their Ottoman predecessors played in the
Armenian Genocide and reject denial. No other country in the
world should support Turkey's indefensible position. There is
a growing awareness and understanding of this fact, even
within Turkey itself. We were encouraged this year by reports
from Turkey that public discussion of the topic has increased
significantly.
It is our hope that the Turkish people, confronted with
international recognition and spurred by desire to finally
join the European family of nations, will reconcile with
their past. Such reconciliation will lay the groundwork to
build a better future.
Hirair Hovnanian,
Chairman, Board of Trustees.
Van Z. Krikorian,
Chairman, Board of Directors.
____________________
REMEMBERING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend those who join me
tonight in educating the world about the Armenian Genocide. I think I
bring some special province to this occasion in that I am the grandson
of Oscar Chaderjain, a first-generation Armenian American, and the son
of Mary Chaderjain. So therefore, this is an issue that is near and
dear to my heart.
Mr. Speaker, for those who question whether the genocide ever
occurred in the first instance, I must say that I have no doubt that it
did. My grandfather was a first-hand witness to the bloodshed. He often
told us of his experience of holding his uncle's arms, with his cousin,
as Turkish soldiers executed that grammar school teacher. He also told
us that the world first took notice of the genocide on April 24, 1915,
when 254 Armenian intellectuals were arrested by Turkish authorities in
Istanbul and taken to the distant provinces of Ayash and Chankiri,
where many of them were later massacred.
Throughout the genocide, Turkish authorities ordered the evacuation
of Armenians out of villages in Turkish Armenia and Asia Minor. As they
were evacuated, the men were often shot immediately. Prisoners were
starved, beaten, and murdered by unmerciful guards.
This was not the case for everyone, though. Not everyone was sent to
concentration camps. For example, in Trebizond, many innocent people
were put on ships and then thrown overboard into the Black Sea.
The atrocities of the Armenian Genocide were still being carried out
in 1921 when Kemalists were found abusing and starving prisoners to
death. In total, as has been pointed out, over 1.5 million Armenians
were killed. This does not include the half a million or more who were
forced to flee their homes and flee to foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, together with Armenians all over the world and people of
conscience, I would like to honor those who lost their homes, their
freedom and their lives during this dark period. Many survivors of the
genocide came to the United States seeking a new beginning, my
grandfather among them. The experiences of his childhood so fueled his
desire for freedom for his Armenian homeland that in the first world
war he returned there where he was awarded two medals of honor for
bravery in his fight against fascism.
It is important that we do not forget about these terrible atrocities
because, as other speakers have said and as Winston Churchill said,
``Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.''
For those in America who think this is only a sad story, and it
certainly is a sad story, they need to take note that Armenia has taken
great strides in achieving its independence over the past 8 years.
{time} 1915
Once it was a captive nation struggling to preserve its centuries-old
customs. Today the Republic of Armenia is an independent, freedom-
loving nation and a friend to the United States and to the democratic
world.
Let us remember today, April 24, 2001, marks the 86th anniversary of
one of the most gruesome human atrocities of the 20th century. Sadly,
it was the systematic killing of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and
children.
Let us remember that prior to his invasion of Poland in 1939 and
subsequent Nazi oppression, Adolph Hitler attempted to justify his own
actions by simply stating, ``After all, who remembers the Armenians?''
As we do not ignore the occurrence of the Nazi Holocaust, we must not
ignore the Armenian genocide.
I believe many people across the world will concede this is a very
tender and difficult event to discuss. What we do tonight is not to
condemn the Turkish people. Rather, it is to recognize the actions of
the past and past wrongs in order to ensure that we do not repeat them.
However, as a strong, fervent supporter of the Republic of Armenia, I
am alarmed that Turkish Government officials still refuse to
acknowledge what
[[Page 6099]]
happened, and instead are attempting to rewrite history.
It is vital that we do not let political agendas get in the way of
doing what is right. I will continue to call upon the Turkish
Government to accept complete accountability for the Armenian genocide.
To heal the wounds of the past, the Turkish Government must first
recognize its responsibility for actions of past leaders.
Nothing we can do or say, Mr. Speaker, will bring back those who
perished; but we can honor those who lost their homes, their freedom,
and their lives by teaching future generations the lessons of the
atrocities.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO THOSE LOST IN THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Michigan). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening, as my colleagues and I
do every year at this time, in a proud but solemn tradition to remember
and pay tribute to the victims of one of history's worst crimes against
humanity, the Armenian genocide of 1929 through 1933.
The genocide began 86 years ago today. Mr. Speaker, I have long
supported legislation that would put the U.S. House of Representatives
officially on the record in recognizing the Armenian genocide.
Last fall, the bipartisan Armenian genocide bill was approved by the
Committee on International Relations by a vote of 24 to 11. On October
19 of last year, the legislation was finally scheduled for a vote on
the House floor. I am confident that if the vote had ever occurred, the
Armenian genocide legislation would have passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support.
In a last-minute effort to ensure the legislation never came to the
floor for a vote, the Turkish Government sent a threat to President
Clinton that American soldiers stationed in the region would be in
jeopardy if a vote ever took place. This threat was enough for
President Clinton to send a letter to the Speaker of this House
requesting that the legislation be pulled from the schedule.
Essentially, the Speaker and President Clinton, and therefore the
government of the United States, both executive and legislative,
succumbed to the threats of the Turkish Government. I believe this was
shameful. Italy and France did not give in to the Turkish Government
last year when both these nations approved an Armenian genocide
resolution.
I am also proud that State and local governments here in the United
States are stepping out in front of the Federal Government on this
issue. Earlier this month, Maryland approved an Armenian genocide
resolution, becoming the 27th State to make such a recognition.
Congress, Mr. Speaker, should not be forced by a foreign government
to deny or ignore the U.S. record and response to the events that took
place in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. Those of us who have
been fighting for this recognition will not give up. We are committed,
and we will not quit fighting until this Nation finally recognizes the
Armenian genocide as genocide.
President Bush had a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to recognize
the genocide today in annual statements made by the President. From
statements that candidate Bush made, one would have believed as
President he would use the word ``genocide'' today. But sadly, today,
the President chose not to use the word ``genocide,'' thus minimizing
the events from 1915 to 1923 that we commemorate this evening.
I know many Armenian-Americans will feel betrayed because of
President Bush's inaction today. In public statements and letters to
Armenian organizations and individuals during his Presidential
campaign, Bush said, ``The 20th century was marred by wars of
unimaginable brutality, mass murders, and genocide. History records
that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have
endured these cruelties.''
Bush went on to say, ``If elected President, I would ensure that our
Nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian
people.'' But it is unfortunate that the President did not stand by
these words today.
I am trying not to be partisan here, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I am
disappointed with President Bush, as I was disappointed with President
Clinton before him.
For anyone who has any doubts about the truth of the Armenian
genocide, they can just go down the street to the National Archives,
where volumes of historical records prove what really happened. Five
years from now, we will have the opportunity to visit a genocide museum
here in Washington. The museum, which will be located at 14th and G
Streets in the Northwest area of our Nation's Capital, will be a
permanent reminder of the atrocities of 1915 to 1923.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the remarks of my friend, Ross
Vartian, the director of planning for this new museum, who discussed
this issue.
The statement by Mr. Vartian is as follows:
Statement by Ross Vartian, Director of Planning, Armenian National
Institute, Knights of Vartan Times Square Martyr's Day Event, April 22,
2001
The Armenian National Institute, or ANI, extends its deep
appreciation to the Knights of Vartan for once again
organizing this year's Martyr's Day Commemoration. We
recognize the leadership of Grand Commander Robert Barsam,
this event's Chairman Sam Azadian, Martyr's Day Committee
members Hirant Gulian & Leon Nigogosian, and all the other
dedicated volunteers who made it possible for us to be here
today to remember our losses, celebrate our survivors and
commit to a future without Genocide.
I am here today to talk about the future Armenian Genocide
Museum and memorial. When complete, this complex in our
nation's capital just two blocks from the White House will be
the first ever Museum and Memorial about the Armenian
Genocide anywhere in the Diaspora.
On behalf of the Armenian National Institute, I am pleased
to outline our vision for what will be in the not too distant
future a state of the art museum and memorial complex
dedicated to Armenian Genocide remembrance, research and
education, as well as serving as another powerful voice for
Genocide prevention.
Washington is justifiably renown for the quality of its
museums, and we have set as our standard to match the best
that our nation's capital has to offer. Therefore, we warmly
welcome the solidarity and support of the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum, whose superb exhibits and programs have
inspired and empowered millions.
In all candor, we have just begun our work. The acquisition
of this marquee property in the heart of Washington, DC has
served as the catalyst to undertake a comprehensive, multi-
year planning,design and development process. We are
currently reviewing proposals from competitive teams or
architects, museum designers and property developers to
recommend the best space utilization option for the
properties we have acquired. We are aware that only the best
professional talent will suffice for our purposes.
The Armenian National Institute accepts the privilege and
responsibility of creating a physical complex second to none
and of creating exhibits and programs that will be as
inspirational and empowering as those in the Holocaust
Memorial Museum and other leading interactive museums around
the world.
ANI is also aware of the special responsibility of
completing the first ever Armenian Genocide Museum and
Memorial outside Armenia. Fully recognizing that the entire
community will wish to engage, ANI will seek the active
participation of our incredibly diverse Armenian Diaspora and
ancestral homeland. This is, after all, a presentation about
all Armenians for humankind. No organization would have the
right to present the modern Armenian saga without first
seeking out the resources and perspectives of the entire
community.
The museum and memorial complex will be a permanent place
for generations of visitors that will be made possible by all
Armenians, joined by others of good will who appreciate its
universal moral implications.
Our project is timely. Those who would deny the Armenian
Genocide are now limited to Turkish officials and those
beyond Turkey who invoke political and economic rationales
for their support.
In the academic arena, the uncontestable fact of the
Armenian Genocide has been overwhelmingly affirmed.
Similarly, in secondary schools and universities throughout
the western world, students of Holocaust and Genocide studies
routinely examine the case of the Armenian Genocide to learn
its specific and universal lessons.
Nevertheless, the struggle continues between remembrance
and denial--and remembrance and indifference.
[[Page 6100]]
It is our hope that this center will serve as the nexus to
broaden awareness of the Armenian Genocide throughout the
academic and educational communities whose focus is human
rights, the responsibility of majorities towards minorities,
and the horrified consequences for peoples and groups at risk
in the absence of safeguards.
But it is also our hope that this place will provide public
officials with a greater degree of moral conviction, courage
and vision so that they summarily reject the incessant
threats that emanate from Turkish officials to sever
diplomatic and economic relations when any government dares
to affirm the Armenian Genocide. The public officials with
you today have demonstrated by their presence and other
official actions that they reject Turkey's denials and
threats.
Ladies and gentlemen . . .
Through this facility, we will remind the world of Hitler's
chilling cynicism on humankind's predilection to forget.
Through this facility, we will enthusiastically support
collaborative work between turks and Armenians. We have seen
in this great country the redemptive value of facing history
squarely, and we will promote a dialogue to secure the same
benefits for our two peoples.
Through this facility we will promote international
condemnation of and action against any government of people
that attempts to do what was done to our people at the
beginning of the last century.
We must succeed in this unprecedented effort in the name of
our martyred millions, in tribute to those who survived and
established new Armenian communities throughout the world,
and in honor of countless non-Armenians who protested this
crime against humanity and who saved tens of thousands from
oblivion.
Finally ladies and gentlemen, we will succeed not only to
remember the past but also to enhance the security of the
people of Armenian and Karabagh--and to help insure that the
world never forgets the cataclysmic price of indifference and
inaction.
We look forward to this historic challenge and we welcome
all who wish to join us. Thank you in advance for your
generous support.
Mr. Speaker, the Armenian genocide is a painful subject to discuss
for me and others. We must never forget, though, what happened, and
never cease speaking out. We must overcome the denials and the
indifference, and keep alive the memory and truth of what happened to
the Armenian people in the past, as we work to see in this tragic
history that it never be repeated.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I also rise here this evening to speak of
one of the great horrors of our century, and that is the Armenian
genocide. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, I
once again join a large number of colleagues in recognizing the great
tragedy of the Armenian people.
As we all know and has been stated here several times tonight, this
genocide occurred in 1915 when the Ottoman Empire began to force
Armenians from their homeland, and it lasted until 1923. These 8 years
saw the deaths of 1.5 million innocent victims and 500,000 exiled
survivors.
Despite the tremendous magnitude of the genocide, the world stood by
as families were torn asunder and millions of lives were taken.
Therefore, today, as we stand in recognition of the victims of this
Armenian genocide, we also stand in recognition of the guilt of
complicity of all nations that turned away when faced with this great
tragedy.
There is no doubt that calling events by their rightful name,
genocide, is an important element of this recognition of
responsibility.
Had we heeded the lessons that emerged from the massacre, perhaps we
could have avoided other great tragedies in this century. In quietly
letting the sorrow of the Armenian people go unresolved, however, we
allow their tragedy to repeat itself over and over again in Germany in
the 1930s and 1940s, in Rwanda in the 1990s, and elsewhere throughout
the world.
Today, as we once again honor the victims of the Armenian genocide,
on behalf of the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I also honor the
commitment and perseverance of Armenian-Americans who have tirelessly
struggled to ensure that the great sorrow of their people becomes known
to all people.
As we in Congress continue to confront issues of international peace
and security, we would do well to remember this message: never forget.
____________________
HONORING THE MEMORY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Armenia
caucus for bringing us together to honor the memory of the greatest
tragedy of Armenian history. This tragedy holds a valuable historical
lesson for all of us.
I myself in California growing up got to know several Armenian
families. One man, one elderly man in one of the families that I knew,
he was the sole survivor of the Armenian genocide. So the lessons are
not just for those that were directly involved; it is for all of us. It
is for all of us to know it is important that we as Americans
acknowledge this genocide. That is what we are talking about today.
Some 56 years ago, my father entered Dachau concentration camp in
Germany with the Seventh Army. He took photographs there that day of
those surviving that genocide, those starving people that the American
troops fed and liberated.
He remembers the quote from Adolph Hitler when Hitler was cautioned
by the German chiefs of staff about his genocidal plans. Of course, as
we have heard tonight, Hitler's retort was, ``Who remembers the
Armenians?''
Well, 86 years ago today, the Ottoman Empire set out on a well-
orchestrated campaign to exterminate a race of people. On that day,
they began the campaign by focusing on the Armenian religious and
political and intellectual leaders that they arrested in
Constantinople, and they murdered them.
In the years that followed, Armenians living under Ottoman rule were
systematically deprived of their property, their individual rights, and
ultimately, of their lives. As we have heard, between 1915 and 1923,
the number of deaths was horrific. Some 1.5 million Armenians were
murdered and 500,000 were deported from their homeland; and at the end
of these 8 years, the Armenian population of Anatolia and western
Armenia was virtually eliminated.
Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the
time, characterized this as a death warrant to a whole race. Morgenthau
recognized that this campaign was ethnic cleansing. It is unfortunate
that the Turkish Government to this day does not recognize this.
Willful ignorance of the lessons of history all but ensures that those
mistakes can be made again.
In the last Congress, I joined 143 of my colleagues to cosponsor a
congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. The
resolution expressly differentiated between the Ottoman Empire and the
modern day Republic of Turkey. We understand these are not the same
governments.
Unfortunately, despite hard-fought efforts, the resolution was never
able to come to the House floor last Congress because of concerns, in
my mind concerns without merit, with Turkey's reaction. I believed
then, as I do now, that it remains important for the Congress to go on
the record.
Beyond affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian genocide, the
resolution encouraged awareness and understanding of what genocide is,
and this crime against humanity has been compounded to this day by
those who refuse to recognize it. The victims and their families, many
of whom live in the United States, are owed this recognition. That is
why we must have this resolution pass this floor.
In my home State of California, the State Board of Education has
incorporated the story of Armenian genocide in the social studies
curriculum. California is doing the right thing.
As of last September, California law now permits victims of the
Armenian
[[Page 6101]]
genocide and their heirs to use California courts to pursue unpaid
insurance claims. The tentative settlement reached between heirs of
Armenian genocide victims and New York Life Insurance over claims that
New York Life failed to honor are an estimated 2,500 valid insurance
claims. That is a good start.
The Armenian genocide is not simply a problem of the past; it has
implications for the future. Our actions now will lay the groundwork
for addressing genocide whenever it threatens to erupt again.
Many of the survivors of the genocide and their descendents now live,
as I say, in the United States, many in California. This 85-year-old
tragedy is more than an event in history. By recognizing and learning
about the crime against humanity, we can begin to honor the courage of
its victims and commemorate the strides made by its survivors.
____________________
{time} 1930
HIV AND AIDS PANDEMIC HAS DEVASTATED MANY COUNTRIES IN AFRICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Michigan). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues to talk about
the HIV and AIDS pandemic. The AIDS pandemic has devastated many
countries in Africa, leaving few men and women and children untouched.
Sub-Sahara Africa has been far more severely infected by AIDS than any
other part of the world. In 16 countries, all in sub-Sahara Africa,
more than 1 in 10 adults is affected by the HIV virus.
According to a joint report issued by the United Nations Program on
HIV and AIDS, one-half or more of all 15 year-olds will eventually die
of AIDS in some of the worst areas affected such as Zambia, South
Africa, and Botswana. Over 34 million HIV/AIDS cases are in the world,
and 24 million or 70 percent are in Africa.
I recently visited Botswana to see up close the destruction this
disease has caused. Approximately 35 percent of Botswana's adult
population is affected by HIV. AIDS has cut the life expectancy in
Botswana from 71 years to 39, according to Karen Stanecki of the United
States Census Bureau during an appearance at an international AIDS
conference held in South Africa in July 2000.
The visit that I made strengthened my conviction to do my part in
bringing the awareness to this issue and to work with my colleagues in
Congress, national governments, State and local governments, and
activists around the world to do more for the people who have the virus
and to do more to stop the spread of the disease.
Soon after I returned from Botswana, I sponsored an HIV/AIDS
roundtable discussion in my district that consists of public health
officials, community activists, HIV/AIDS case managers, community
health providers, doctors, individuals suffering from HIV/AIDS. I
sponsored this roundtable because my district in eastern North Carolina
has a high incidence of HIV/AIDS.
Eastern North Carolina, which includes more than my district, all on
the south side of 95 North, the Interstate, about 25 counties indeed
have 30 percent of the State's HIV disease. That only represents, by
the way, only 20 percent of our population. Clearly this is an issue
that is affecting us both domestically as well as internationally.
Given the loss of lives AIDS has caused, the destruction of entire
communities, the long-term impact of economic growth, we must step up
our effort to fight the devastating disease. With children dying at the
age of 15 and the life expectancy in most of Africa of 45 years for
children born in some countries, something must be done. Indeed,
children being born in these countries cannot expect to live long.
There is very little future.
To ignore the problem is to our own peril, but to know the impact of
AIDS and then to ignore it is to our own shame.
I applaud the pharmaceutical companies for dropping the lawsuit to
prevent South Africa from importing cheaper anti-AIDS drugs and
medicines. Now we must increase efforts to provide affordable anti-AIDS
drugs to all who need them. I challenge the pharmaceutical industry,
countries worldwide, and the United States government to engage in a
collected effort to get the necessary drugs to people infected with
HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record two publications on this issue,
one from The New York Times and the other from The Washington Post, as
follows:
[From the New York Times, Apr. 21, 2001]
Despite Legal Victory, South Africa Hesitates on AIDS Drugs
(By Rachel L. Swarns)
Johannesburg, April 20.--With the Champagne consumed and
the celebration over, advocates for AIDS patients today
turned their attention from the South African government's
legal victory over the drug industry and looked to the
future.
With sinking hearts, many concluded that the next big
barrier to expanding access to AIDS drugs might well be the
government itself.
The drug industry conceded South Africa's right to import
cheaper brand-name medicines, but the governing African
National Congress was not aggressively charting the way
forward.
Instead, in its online newspaper, the party was ticking off
countless reasons why the country should think twice about
providing lifesaving AIDS cocktails.
In this, the ruling party was echoing the health minister,
Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who dashed the hopes of her
allies on Thursday when she made it clear that providing AIDS
drugs was not a government priority, even though the drug
industry had just dropped its objections to a law that allows
South Africa to import brand-name drugs at the lowest prices
available.
When pressed about her plans for treating the nation's 4.7
million people infected with H.I.V., Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang
insisted that the government was already offering adequate
care without costly AIDS drugs.
Mark Heywood, a lawyer who helped organize the street
protests that applied pressure on the drug industry to drop
its lawsuit against South Africa, said today that the
minister's remarks felt ``like a stab in the back.'' And her
comments and those from the A.N.C. have revived concerns
about the government's commitment to providing the medicines
in a country with more people infected with H.I.V. than any
other.
This morning, Mr. Heywood and other advocates for AIDS
patients gathered to consider a new campaign to pressure drug
companies to lower prices of AIDS drugs in the private
sector. But they also decided to focus on the government, and
to turn up the heat if necessary, to persuade health
officials to work harder to bring the AIDS drugs readily
available in the West to the poor in South Africa.
``Our work on the court case shows our willingness to enter
into partnership, but we will not shirk from very difficult
engagements with the government,'' Mr. Heywood said.
``Yesterday was an important and empowering victory. But
we're measuring success by bringing real medicines to real
people.''
On Thursday, 39 drug companies agreed to drop a lawsuit
intended to block a law that would expand access to cheaper
medicines. Among other things, it would allow the government
to buy brand-name drugs that advocates say are sold more
cheaply in India and Brazil than in South Africa.
But the law, which will take effect in several months, is
unlikely to expand access significantly. The drugs are still
expensive for South Africa, and the health care system here,
particularly in rural areas, is still largely unprepared to
administer such complicated medicines and to monitor
patients.
Advocates for AIDS patients acknowledge those obstacles.
Still, many had hoped to hear a sense of urgency from the
government about addressing them.
Other African countries that are poorer than South Africa
and that have even weaker health systems have already moved
ahead with pilot programs that provide anti-retrovirals at a
low cost. The countries include Ivory Coast, Uganda and
Senegal.
Botswana, a relatively wealthy African country, hopes to
provide the medicines to all of its citizens who need them by
the end of the year.
Many people here hoped South Africa would be next. AIDS
activists want the government to consider financing plans, to
start training nurses and doctors and upgrading local
hospitals and to put together a national treatment plan.
Other activists are pressuring the government to apply for
special permission to import cheap generic versions of the
patented AIDS drugs, which would finally bring the
``cocktails'' within reach.
But the government is clearly reluctant to take the
preliminary steps to get those drugs to the dying.
[[Page 6102]]
Some suspect this reluctance may come from President Thabo
Mbeki, who has publicly questioned the safety of the drugs
and whether H.I.V. causes the disease. After being assailed
here and abroad for his stance, Mr. Mbeki withdrew from the
AIDS debate last year.
And in recent months, the government has taken positive
steps, announcing a pilot program to distribute anti-
retrovirals to pregnant women to prevent transmission to
newborn; accepting a drug company donation to treat
opportunistic infections; and developing guidelines for the
proper use of anti-retrovirals in the private sector.
But Dr. Thabalala-Msimang emphasized that programs to
provide anti-retrovirals for adults were not coming anytime
soon.
``For the moment, the best advice is to treat opportunistic
infections,'' she said on Thursday. She added that such
treatment, along with improved diet and counseling, would
``allow people with H.I.V. to manage their lives and
participate adequately.''
``We are indeed treating people who are H.I.V. positive,''
Dr. Thabalala-Mismang continued, in response to repeated
questions about when anti-retroviral programs might be
available. ``It is not correct to say that just because we do
not provide anti-retrovirals that we are not treating
people.''
____
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 23, 2001]
Global AIDS Strategy May Prove Elusive; More Funds Available, But
Consensus Lacking
(By Karen DeYoung)
After a string of victories in the long battle for lower-
priced AIDS drugs in poor countries, health care experts,
AIDS activists and major donors are facing what might be an
even tougher challenge--agreeing on a unified strategy to
fight the pandemic.
``Now is when the hard part starts,'' said Johnathan Quick,
head of the essential medicines division of the Geneva-based
World Health Organization.
One debate among health experts and activists concerns
whether to concentrate new resources on sophisticated
treatment--even at newly reduced prices--to improve and
prolong the lives of those in advanced stages of the disease,
or on AIDS prevention, less expensive treatment of AIDS-
related diseases and basic health programs aimed at stopping
the disease's spread. More than 36 million people worldwide,
the vast majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa, are infected
with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes
AIDS.
Resolving this and other differences has taken on new
urgency as donors have indicated willingness to provide
substantial new funds for a global AIDS campaign. Uneasy
about a lack of coordination, some donors, led by Britain's
Department for International Development, this month issued
what some described as an ultimatum to UNAIDS--the consortium
of U.N. agencies and the World Bank that oversees
international AIDS efforts.
``They told us they want something put on the table,'' said
a senior representative of a UNAIDS member. ``They challenged
us to have a common view.''
At a meeting in London today, members of UNAIDS are
scheduled to present a broad proposal for an international
AIDS trust fund administered by both contributing and
recipient countries. Participating in the meeting will be
delegates from the United States, Britain and other members
of the Group of 8; the Scandinavian countries and the
Netherlands; and major private donors, including the Gates
Foundation. Questions about how to spend the money would be
decided by a joint governing committee formed of donors and
aid recipients.
Getting various organizations and countries in line for a
common approach has not been easy. The United Nations was
thrown into an uproar late last month when Carol Bellamy,
executive director of the U.N. Children's Fund, declared in a
New York Times op-ed article that ``UNICEF is prepared to
step forward as the lead United Nations agency in the
procurement of anti-retroviral drugs on behalf of individual
countries.''
That offer, reportedly not cleared with U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan, upset WHO Director General Gro Harlem
Brundtland, who saw it as a premature policy proposal, as
well as a public challenge to WHO's primacy on AIDS. U.N.
agencies in charge of development and population, among
others, voiced disapproval, even as they, too, clamored to
claim a share of money that is not yet available.
``They are sort of like sharks when there's blood in the
water,'' said one close observer of the U.N. process. ``There
is money in the air.''
Apart from the United Nations, others have proposed uses
for new funding. Early this month, Harvard economist Jeffrey
Sachs proposed establishment of a massive global AIDS fund to
purchase anti-retroviral drugs for Africa. AIDS activists
criticized the proposal, which would involve patent-holding
pharmaceutical companies, for not favoring generic producers
who have offered even cheaper prices.
Two days later, Microsoft founder Bill Gates called a news
conference to warn that the treatment emphasis risked
undermining prevention efforts. Gates's family foundation has
given hundreds of millions of dollars to the international
fight against AIDS--the most of any single donor.
After years of being shamed by international pressure, the
major pharmaceutical companies are now offering the three-
drug anti-retroviral AIDS ``cocktail'' to some poor countries
for less than a tenth of the developed world's $10,000 per
patient per year starting price. Patent-busting generic
producers have offered even lower prices.
Nongovernmental activists riding high after humbling the
pharmaceutical industry on the price issue are calling on
African governments to immediately start positioning
themselves to provide the drugs. They point to Brazil, whose
government produces its own anti-retrovirals and distributes
them for free.
``I think the big decisions are not with the co-opted
northern bureaucrats,'' said James Love of the Washington-
based Consumer Project on Technology, a Ralph Nader-
affiliated group that analyzes drug pricing. Love, who along
with other activists advocates bypassing the big companies
and going straight into import and production of generic
drugs, called on African governments to ``have the guts'' to
move forward with new authorizing laws.
But some have warned that such a strategy is ultimately
counterproductive. They point out that Africa has neither the
health infrastructure nor the personnel to support widespread
use of the complicated treatment regime. There are currently
14 anti-retroviral drugs, patented by a handful of major
companies, used in various combinations to compose the three-
drug cocktail. New drugs will be needed as existing compounds
become less effective, and many companies are involved in the
search for a vaccine.
The companies have argued that generic producers do not pay
for research and development, and unless the world trade
system can guarantee that future patents will be protected,
research funds will be diminished.
Many Africans say they don't want to be pushed. ``We
wouldn't like any further delay'' in caring for South
Africa's more than 4 million HIV-infected people, Foreign
Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said last week as the major
pharmaceutical companies withdrew from a three-year lawsuit
to prevent her government from authorizing import and
production of generic drugs. ``But regulations have to be
done before any laws can be implemented. We'll do what we
can, not because of pressure, but because we think it's
right.''
Other African seemed caught between their desire to get to
the front of the line for new funding and early resentment of
the expected new onslaught of advice and dictates from
developed countries. ``A Ugandan colleague told me that the
biggest epidemic lately is the epidemic of initiatives,'' one
European aid official said.
The proposal that was to be outlined today in London leaves
open the question of how much should be spent on drugs.
UNAIDS has estimated that a minimum of $3 billion a year is
needed to establish basic HIV prevention and non-anti-
retroviral treatment in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Adding the
anti-retroviral drugs, even at bargain-basement prices, would
bring that total to about $10 billion.
International contributions currently total less than $1
billion a year. According to a General Accounting Office
report released last month, Africa expenditures in the fight
against HIV/AIDS in fiscal 2000 by the U.S. Agency for
International Development--the largest national donor--
totaled $114 million. The GAO report noted that amount
``translated into per capita expenditures for 23 sub-Saharan
African countries'' ranging from $0.78 in Zambia to $0.03 in
the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In its budget resolution passed this month, the Senate
voted to increase total international AIDS spending to $1
billion over the next two years, although President Bush's
budget proposes only a small fraction of that amount.
The European Union, as well as its individual members, and
Japan have said they are prepared to provide major new funds.
But nobody believes that $10 billion is a realistic
expectation for the near or middle term, and choices will
have to be made.
``The exclusive focus on the issue of patent rights and
prices of drugs really has overridden the much more
fundamental question of how you actually get these services
out and how you blunt the epidemic itself,'' said one
international health official who asked not to be identified.
``If all of these resources go to treating the terminally
ill, then we can in fact see this process turn into one
that's really negative for the development of effective
prevention programs.
``It's so politically incorrect to say, but we may have to
sit by and just see these millions of [already infected]
people die,'' he said, acknowledging that this was an option
that would be considered unacceptable in the developed world.
``Very few public health professionals are willing to take on
the wrath of AIDS activists by saying that. But a whole lot
of them talk about this in private.''
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the life expectancy of some in Africa of 45.
To continue to watch this disease shorten
[[Page 6103]]
the lives of most people, again, is a challenge to us morally; and it
is to our peril if we do not understand the implication it has, not
only on global trade, but also in national security.
South African government also now has an opportunity and also a
challenge. They must respond to the victory of the pharmaceutical
companies withdrawing their lawsuit by seeking medications for the 4.3
million people. They cannot stand by and do nothing.
In the United States, people have been living longer with HIV virus
and with AIDS. While not a cure for AIDS, certainly the drugs have
allowed many American citizens and citizens living in developing
countries to live longer. These drugs are out of reach to most in
Africa. Until we find a cure for AIDS, treatment must be affordable and
accessible. Treatment can prolong life, indeed give substantially more
quality of life. In the United States, we now have AIDS-related
treatments and that has added to the mortality.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to act on this.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO WEST POINT CADET JOHN HEINMILLER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, the people of Eden Prairie, Minnesota are
in mourning today as they grieve the loss of a favorite son, West Point
Cadet John Heinmiller.
There are no words to adequately convey our sympathy to Cadet
Heinmiller's family. Our hearts and prayers go out to John's father
John, his mother Julie, and younger brothers and sister Joe, Jimmy and
Sue, on Cadet Heinmiller's tragic death early Sunday in Garrison, New
York.
John's loving family and countless friends are in shock over the
passing of this remarkable young man who ``left an indelible mark on
friends, coaches and teachers,'' to quote from today's front page
article in the Star Tribune.
Mr. Speaker, John's death is not only a great tragedy for his
wonderful family, but also a great tragedy for Eden Prairie High School
and the United States Military Academy. John was loved and respected by
everyone who knew him. Of the several hundred service academy
nominations that I have made over the past decade, John truly stands
out for his remarkable personal qualities.
John was not only a star in hockey, football and the classroom, John
was a star in the way he conducted his life. As I said, when I
nominated John to West Point: ``John Heinmiller is destined for success
at the Military Academy and beyond because he has it all: highly
intelligent, a great student athlete, personally charming, a quick wit
and, most importantly, integrity and character that we need in our
future leaders.''
It is not easy to stand out, Mr. Speaker, the way John Heinmiller did
at a high school renowned for its athletics with more than 3,000
students. An honors student, John was so highly respected for his
leadership qualities that his teammates at Eden Prairie High School
voted him senior captain of both his football and hockey teams. He also
earned his school's highest athletic honor the Scott Ryski Award.
As his Eden Prairie High School football coach Mike Grant put it
best, ``John was a good football player, but above that, he was an
outstanding person. This is a devastating loss to our school, our
community and our city. This is a kid who would have been leading our
country someday.''
Eden Prairie's boys' hockey coach, Lee Smith, also coached John and
said, ``He was also the kind of person that if you spent 2 minutes
around, you would see dedication, love, charisma and energy. John was
one of the greatest role models who has ever gone through our high
school.''
At West Point, John was a freshman hockey player and was called up to
play with the varsity this past season. From all reports by West Point
officials and coaches, John had already distinguished himself and was
headed for great success.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, John Heinmiller loved his family very dearly.
His younger brothers and sister were his best friends. As John's dad
told me yesterday, ``His mother and I could not have asked for a better
son in every way.''
Mr. Speaker, my prayer today is that Cadet John Heinmiller's legacy
will inspire all of us to greater heights. We thank God for the way
John lived his life and the wonderful role model he was. We are also
grateful to John for his service to country at West Point.
May John Heinmiller's spirit continue to live in each of us and may
God bless his family and friends.
____________________
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to once again reflect
on the atrocities suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the
Ottoman Turks 86 years ago.
Little did anyone know that, on this very day, April 24, 1915, that
day would forever signify the beginning of a Turkish campaign to
eliminate the Armenian people from the face of this Earth.
Over the following 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians perished. Hundreds
of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were
massacred. More than 500,000 were exiled from their homes. Armenian
civilization, one of the oldest civilizations, virtually ceased to
exist.
Sadly, little attention is paid to this tragic episode of 20th
century history. But that is why I join my colleagues, as I have each
year since I was elected to Congress, to remember one of the most
tragic events that humankind has ever witnessed.
But, unfortunately, as time wears on, so much of it has faded into
memory, and people begin to forget what occurred during that horrific
time. Even worse, as time passes, and people are distracted from the
atrocities, naysayers and revisionists have the opportunity to change
this generation's understanding of the Armenian genocide.
Just as outrageous is that this genocide has gone unpunished, and an
international court has yet to condemn the massacre of an entire
nation. In part, this is because the current leaders in Istanbul will
not acknowledge the crime committed.
That is why it is imperative that the United States House of
Representatives becomes a voice in the campaign to recognize and
acknowledge the Armenian genocide. That is why we must support the
Bonior-Radanovich resolution.
Mr. Speaker, despite the unspeakable tragedy, Armenians remain a
compassionate, proud, and dignified people. An Armenian civilization
lives on and thrives. In fact, every proud Armenian that walks the
Earth worldwide is the product of generations of perseverance, courage
and hope. Thankfully, this Armenian spirit lives on within our own
borders, especially in my home State of California.
On behalf of Armenia and on behalf of all of our Armenian friends,
neighbors, and colleagues, I urge the House of Representatives to
recognize our responsibility to learn from the past and to speak out in
order to prevent similar atrocities in the future.
This could well be the most important lesson each of us takes away
from such an atrocious global experience.
____________________
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the
Armenian Congressional Caucus here in Washington, and we have over 90
members, and as a representative of a very large and vibrant community
of Armenian Americans, I rise today to join many of my colleagues in
the sad commemoration of the Armenian genocide.
Today we remember the tragedy where more than 1.5 million Armenians
were murdered at the hands of the
[[Page 6104]]
Turks and more than 500,000 others were deported.
{time} 1945
Unfortunately, there were others included in this massacre, including
Assyrians and Pontic Greeks, bringing the number to well over 3.5
million lost lives.
Today, April 24, marks the 86th anniversary of the beginning of the
genocide. It was on this day in 1915 that more than 200 Armenian
religious, political and intellectual leaders were gathered together
and murdered in Constantinople. This was the beginning of an organized,
brutal campaign to eliminate the Armenian presence from the Ottoman
Empire. This campaign lasted for over 8 years. During this time,
Armenians were systematically uprooted from their homeland of over
3,000 years and eliminated through massacres or deportation. But
Armenians are strong people, and their dream of freedom did not die.
More than 70 years after the genocide, the new Republic of Armenia was
born as the Soviet Union crumbled.
Today, we pay tribute to the courage and strength of people who would
not know defeat. I was privileged to meet with many of these people
this past weekend on Sunday in my district where Sam Azadian along with
Archbishop Barsamian and many others held a meeting where we remembered
the massacres. One of the survivors, Sano Halo, was there. Her daughter
has written a book about her life entitled ``Not Even My Name.'' It
tells the story of Ms. Halo who, at the age of 10, was uprooted with
her family with thousands of Pontic Greeks and forced by the Turks on a
brutal death march. Ms. Halo saw her entire family die of starvation
and disease in front of her eyes, or assault and murder by the Turks.
Through circumstances, she was able to survive and has come to the
United States and now lives in my district.
Unfortunately, even with the truthful, thoughtful accounts from
people who experienced the genocide such as Ms. Halo, there are those
who question the reality of the Armenian slaughter. That is why it is
so important that in this Congress we must finally pass the resolution
documenting the Armenian genocide. We must follow the moral leadership
of France and Italy whose national assemblies unanimously passed a bill
that officially recognizes the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in
Turkey during and after World War II. And we must follow the leadership
of many of our State legislatures. Over 27 legislatures have passed
proclamations, resolutions, bills recognizing the genocide.
For the people of Armenia, the fight still continues today,
particularly for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, who are impacted by
modern day Turkey and Azerbaijan's aggression toward Armenia in the
continued blockade. I am hopeful that the recent talks in Key West
between the Armenian and Azerbaijan presidents will move them one step
closer toward peace. A peaceful solution is important to United States
interests.
We have supported Armenia with direct assistance and with confidence-
building allocations. I strongly support the efforts of the Armenian
community to dedicate a museum and memorial commemorating the victims
of the Armenian genocide. This year, their dream became a reality with
the purchase of a building near the White House. Nothing we can say
will bring back those who perished, but we can honor their memories
with everlasting meaning by teaching the lessons of the Armenian
genocide to the next generation.
As the great philosopher George Santayana once said, ``Those who do
not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Let us learn our
lesson and never forget the Armenians.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
____________________
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to add my
voice and join my colleagues in remembering and paying tribute to those
Armenians who lost their lives and national identity during one of the
20th century's tragic examples of persecution and intolerance, the
Armenian genocide of 1915-1923.
Many Armenians in America, particularly Indiana, are the children and
grandchildren of survivors. In fact, tonight I may represent the fewest
number here. I think I have either two or six Armenians in my district.
But some 20 years ago my friend, Zohrab Tazian, did a presentation to a
Rotary Club as I watched the historical film in the background of how
the Armenians were destroyed and chased, and listened to his personal
story of how his family fled down to Lebanon; and eventually he made
his way to the United States. It touched me, as do other human rights
tragedies such as this.
We commemorate this tragedy because it marks the beginning of the
persecution, ethnic cleansing of the Armenian people by the Ottoman
Turks on April 24, 1915. Armenian political, intellectual and religious
leaders were arrested, forcibly moved from their homeland and killed.
The brutality continued against the Armenian people as families were
uprooted from their homes and marched to concentration camps in the
desert where many would eventually starve to death.
In 1919 when recalling the event, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman
Empire, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. said, ``I am confident that the whole
history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.
The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost
insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in
1915.'' As we heard Hitler say when he moved into the Holocaust period,
``Who remembers the Armenians?''
By 1923, the religious and ideological persecution by the Ottoman
Turks resulted in the murder of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and
children and the displacement of an additional 500,000 Armenians.
The 20th century has borne witness to many acts of brutality and
savagery by despotic regimes who sought to deny people human rights and
religious freedoms. Examples abound, such as Stalin against the
Russians, Hitler against the Jews, Mao Tse-tung against the Chinese,
Pol Pot against the Cambodians, and currently Bashir against the
Sudanese.
Genocide has devastating consequences for society as a whole because
of the problems created by uprooting entire populations. It is bad
enough to see the persecutions that we see in Tiananmen Square, where
governments do not acknowledge the shooting of civilians; but when you
uproot entire subgroups based on their background, as has happened in
Bosnia, as Serbia was trying to do, and clearly on a massive scale in
Turkey vis-a-vis the Armenians, it is tragic. The survivors become the
ones who carry the memory of the suffering and the realization that
their loved ones are gone. They are the ones who no longer have a home
and may feel ideological and spiritual abandonment.
Part of the healing process for any victims of genocide, including
Armenian survivors and families of survivors, involves acknowledgment
of the atrocity and the admission of wrongdoing by those who
perpetrated the persecution. It is only through acknowledgment and
forgiveness that it is possible to move beyond the past.
Unfortunately, those responsible for ordering the systematic removal
of the Armenians were never brought to justice, and the Armenian
Genocide has become a dark moment in history, even an unacknowledged
moment.
It is important that we remember this tragic event and show strong
leadership by denouncing the persecution
[[Page 6105]]
of people due to their differences in political and religious ideology.
Who can visit the Holocaust Museum and not be personally touched? By
establishing and continuing a discourse, we are acknowledging the
tragedies of the past and remembering those awful moments in history so
they will not be repeated.
As my friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) says, history
may not repeat itself but often it rhymes. Acknowledgment of the
Armenian Genocide by Turkey will help to remove this decades-old
barrier and allow greater cooperation and understanding between these
two people.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those Members who have come down
here tonight to recognize and make sure that regardless of what Turkey
does and regardless of what this Congress does, that the American
people still hear a voice on behalf of the Armenians in this country
and remember the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923, as well as our
thanking all the Armenian organizations who have worked so hard to keep
this issue at the forefront of our minds to serve as an example of the
brutality of man against man.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
____________________
REMEMBER THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, each year I am deeply humbled when we
gather in the United States House of Representatives to honor the
memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished and the 500,000
survivors who were forcibly exiled from their ancestral homes in
Ottoman Turkey during the years 1915 to 1923. Some of those survivors,
Mr. Speaker, are part of my own community in Worcester, Massachusetts.
I had the opportunity to meet with several of them on Sunday during a
special program in the historic Armenian Church of Our Savior.
It is difficult to fathom a greater evil than the massacre and
willful destruction of a people. Those who deny that a holocaust took
place when there are recorded accounts of the barbarity are complicit
and often perpetuate a cycle of violence. This is the injustice much of
the world has committed against the Armenian people.
Elie Wiesel, Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, has called denial
of genocide a double killing: The denial of genocide seeks to reshape
history in order to demonize the victims and rehabilitate the
perpetrators and is, in effect, the final stage of genocide. Nobel
laureate and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the Preface to
the Encyclopedia of Genocide, which was published in 1999 by the
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, writes, ``It is
possible that if the world had been conscious of the genocide that was
committed by the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians, the first
genocide of the 20th century, then perhaps humanity might have been
more alert to the warning signs that were being given before Hitler's
madness was unleashed on an unbelieving world.''
And last year, Mr. Speaker, Israeli Minister of Education Yossi Sarid
said publicly, ``I will do everything in order that Israeli children
learn and know more about the Armenian Genocide. Something happened
that cannot be defined except as genocide; 1.5 million people
disappeared. It was not negligence. It was deliberate.''
And so scholars and eyewitnesses, Nobel laureates and Armenian
survivors have spoken for 86 long years. And now we have entered the
21st century. After a long silence, governments are beginning to
respond. They are beginning to acknowledge formally the Armenian
Genocide. The European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe and the United Nations now recognize and reaffirm the
Armenian Genocide as historical fact. In the last 5 years alone the
parliaments of Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon,
Russia and Sweden have passed resolutions officially recognizing the
Armenian Genocide.
Last November, Pope John Paul II issued a communique condemning the
Armenian Genocide as a ``prologue to horrors'' that would follow in the
20th century. Earlier this year, French President Jacques Chirac signed
into law a bill stating that France publicly recognizes the Armenian
Genocide of 1915. And authorities in Paris have voted to erect a
memorial to the genocide of the Armenian people.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, France has achieved the moral leadership that the
United States Congress and the White House have failed to fulfill. Last
year, for the first time, the Congress moved forward on a resolution
officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide, a resolution I proudly
cosponsored. Unfortunately, the politics of denial and political
expediency combined to thwart that effort. Bowing to pressure from the
current Turkish Government, the measure was kept from coming to the
House floor.
So, we begin again this year. In the House, I am an original
cosponsor of a new resolution to have the United States officially
recognize the Armenian Genocide. Thirty of our States, including
Massachusetts, have passed resolutions officially recognizing the
Armenian Genocide. We have a new President, who pledged during his
campaign that he would officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. I
have joined with over 100 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats
alike, in sending a letter to President Bush asking that he honor his
pledge. I believe in my heart that we can build on the progress made
last year and perhaps this year, 2001, will be seen as the year when
Congress finally debated and approved this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am blessed to represent a district that includes a
vibrant Armenian American community. They have educated the broader
Worcester community and indeed all of Massachusetts about the history
and heritage of Armenian Americans, for out of one of the greatest
tragedies of the 20th century came this community, made up of survivors
of the genocide and the families and children of survivors. They have
created houses of worship, community centers, neighborhood activists
and dedicated workers in every profession. They are the living legacy.
The Armenian nation survives in Europe, and the heritage of Armenia
thrives in America.
I will work with my colleagues to make sure that the United States
will officially recognize the Armenian Genocide and that all of our
children will learn this history and understand why it is part of
America's history and culture.
____________________
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening as a member of the
Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, as have many of my colleagues,
to commemorate and affirm the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest
chapters of the 20th century.
{time} 2000
We have heard this repeated, and I think it is worth repeating
because it is important that it is indelibly implanted in our minds.
April 24, 1915, is remembered and solemnly commemorated each year by
the Armenian community and people of conscience throughout the world.
On that day, a group of Armenian religious, political and intellectual
leaders were arrested in Constantinople, taken to the interior of
Turkey and murdered. In the 8 years that followed, 1.5 million
Armenians were murdered and 500,000 were deported because of the
Ottoman Empire's decision to attempt to eliminate the Armenian people
living under their rule.
[[Page 6106]]
Through our bipartisan congressional efforts, we have and we must
continue to acknowledge and to remember the killing and the suffering
inflicted on the Armenian people during those 8 years at the beginning
of the last century. Real people died and the results were and are
still shocking.
The Armenian genocide is a historical fact. There is a nonpartisan
academic consensus that between 1915 and 1923, 1.5 million Armenians
perished at the hands of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. I deeply
regretted the decision made by this body last year not to consider
House Resolution 596, legislation recognizing the Armenian genocide. If
we in the Congress continue to react with silence regarding these
events and are unwilling to stand up and publicly condemn these
atrocities, we effectively give our approval to abuses of power such as
the Armenian genocide.
We must let the truth about these events be known and continue to
speak out against all instances of inhumanity against one another. To
this day it is still denied by the Turkish Government, just as the
Nazis 2 decades later denied the Holocaust. Both of these atrocities
could have been prevented or at least mitigated if the public had been
aware of them. Sadly, it was only after the world learned of the
Holocaust and the depths to which human beings could sink in their
treatment of each other that the massacre of the Armenian population of
Turkey gained attention as genocide.
Responding to this horror, governmental bodies throughout the world
have passed resolutions and declarations affirming the Armenian
genocide, including Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Lebanon, Vatican City,
Uruguay, the European Parliament, the Russian Duma, the Greek
Parliament, the Swedish Parliament and the French National Senate.
Additionally, 27 States, more than half, have also passed resolutions
condemning the Armenian genocide. I am very pleased that on April 9 of
this year my own State of Maryland enacted the Maryland Day of
Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. I, as had some others, had
written to members of the Maryland Assembly urging their support of the
resolution. I believe this measure will help educate others about this
crime against humanity and send an appropriate message to the thousands
of Maryland residents of Armenian descent who have been profoundly and
personally affected by the Armenian genocide and who have made
tremendous contributions to our State in the areas of business,
agriculture, academia, government, and the arts.
We salute the proud people of Armenian who spent 70 years fighting
Stalinist domination and who have finally, in the past decade, achieved
freedom. However, these freedoms must never allow them or us to forget
the hardships suffered by their ancestors. Our universal respect for
human rights must instill in all of us the continued condemnation and
acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide, one of history's darkest
chapters of the 20th century.
____________________
THE PRESIDENT HAD IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, THAT OUR COMMITMENT TO OPEN
TRADE MUST BE MATCHED BY A STRONG COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING OUR
ENVIRONMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). Under a
previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, this morning constituents of our Ninth
District of Ohio woke up to reports of more job cuts at our local Jeep
plant. The Toledo Blade ran two headlines. One reads, ``Jeep
reductions: Firm warns up to 2,035 Toledo jobs to be cut.'' The second
headline read, ``Expanded PT Cruiser Output Bypasses City of Toledo for
Mexico.''
Welcome to post-NAFTA America. Here we have a company shifting
production from the United States at the expense of our workers. Make
no mistake, these are excellent jobs we are talking about. These are
not minimum-wage jobs with no benefits. These are not low-tech jobs.
They are the type of jobs that any community in America would fight
for. These are middle-class jobs. That is what Toledo and the State of
Ohio did, in fact. They went out and fought for the Jeep jobs. The
taxpayers invested hundreds of millions of dollars to keep those jobs
in Ohio and in the United States, and now Chrysler is cutting 2,000
jobs in Toledo at the same time as it is adding production lines in
Mexico to make the popular PT Cruiser.
Now President Bush wants to expand NAFTA, he tells us. Is this the
promise of NAFTA, 2,000 more families out of work and good jobs in our
country? Is this what the future looks like under a hemispheric NAFTA
known as Free Trade of the Americas, FTAA? Is this what you get with
Fast Track?
President Bush went to Quebec City last week to push for NAFTA's
expansion to the free trade of the Americas. He made some interesting
claims about what his version of free trade envisions. There was some
talk about labor rights and environmental standards and democracy. That
sounds well and good, but we need to see concrete action to back up the
rhetoric.
In Quebec City, President Bush said it is clear to me that ours is a
hemisphere united by freedom. How about the freedom of workers to earn
a living wage and to know that they are protected against workplace
injury and guaranteed the right to organize the worth of their labor?
How about the freedom for families to know what is in their food? How
about the freedom of a mother on the border in Mexico knowing that the
water is safe to drink and the air fit to breathe? How about the
freedom for Members of Congress to have access to all the working
documents and drafts of these agreements, not only the multinational
giants that helped to negotiate the agreement that we are likely to
consider?
In Quebec City, President Bush said, ``Our commitment to open trade
must be matched by a strong commitment to protecting our environment
and improving labor standards.'' But then he did a pirouette and he
said, ``We should not allow labor and environmental codicils to destroy
the spirit of free trade.''
He had it right the first time.
Those of us on the other side of the argument have been saying for
years that these trade agreements should give individuals the same
rights as multinational corporations. The President was wrong when he
said labor and environmental provisions would destroy free trade. If
free trade cannot accommodate labor and environmental concerns, it does
not deserve to be known as free.
If the extension of the right for labor to organize, the right to
free speech and the right to a safe and livable environment are things
that would destroy a trade regime, maybe we should reconsider our trade
priorities. Adding labor and environmental rights as a side agreement
or included with fig-leaf compromises is completely unacceptable. We
learned our lesson with NAFTA, the hard way.
President Bush said, and I quote, ``I am confident I will have trade
promotion authority by the end of the year because I think most people
in the United States Congress understand that trade is beneficial to
our hemisphere.
``It is in our Nation's best interest to have the President have
trade promotion authority,'' he said.
Congress does understand that trade can be beneficial to our
hemisphere. We also know it can be unbeneficial. We do not need Fast
Track to create a trading system that is fair to all nations and
workers. We need a trading system that will lift up workers everywhere
and help us maintain our standard of living in America. We need a trade
agreement that will lift workers up, not leave behind 2,000 more
families in Toledo while factories in Mexico gear up to meet a demand
for a very popular vehicle on the backs of an exploited workforce that
works for slave wages.
Madam Speaker, our rallying cry as we approach the Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas debate must be free trade among free people
and no less.
[[Page 6107]]
____________________
WE MUST CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE AGAINST FORGETTING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Special
Order commemorating the Armenian genocide; and I commend my colleagues,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for putting this Special Order together and
for keeping the issue of the Armenian genocide at the forefront here in
Congress.
The tragic occurrence perpetrated against the Armenian people between
1915 and 1925 by the Ottoman Turkish Empire is of great concern to me
and members of my constituency. During this relatively brief time
frame, over 1.5 million Armenians were massacred and more than 5,000
were exiled. Unfortunately, the Turkish Government has not recognized
these brutal atrocities as acts of genocide. Nor is it willing to come
to terms with these horrific events of the past that many of their
ancestors participated in.
Prior to the Armenian genocide, these brave people with a history of
over 2,500 years in the region were subject to numerous indignities and
periodic massacres by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire. The worst of
these massacres prior to 1915 occurred in 1895 when as many as 300,000
Armenian civilians were murdered, and those who survived were left
completely destitute.
Despite these events, Armenians have survived as a people and a
culture throughout Europe and now throughout the United States. The
Turkish Government needs to come to terms with the past and work
towards improving the future. Turkish groups have suggested that since
Turks were also killed during that time frame it should not be
considered a genocide.
Genocide is the systematic, planned annihilation of a racial,
political, or cultural group. It happened to the Jews in Germany, and
it did happen to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
I am well aware of the importance of Turkey as an ally in an unstable
region and a frontline NATO state. However, the Turkish Government must
officially recognize the atrocities of its predecessors in the Ottoman
Empire. I believe that by failing to recognize such barbaric acts one
becomes complicit in them.
Milan Kundera, the once-exiled Czech novelist, has written, ``The
struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against
forgetting.''
I believe that we, too, must continue to struggle against forgetting.
This Special Order begins that process. This genocide and its lessons
must never be forgotten.
____________________
APRIL 24, 1915, ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues today to remember a
horrific atrocity in history, the Armenian genocide. April 24 is
recognized as the anniversary date of this genocide, when Armenian
intellectuals and professionals in Constantinople were rounded up and
deported or killed.
From 1915 to 1923, a million and a half Armenians were killed and
countless others suffered as a result of the systematic and deliberate
campaign of genocide by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire.
Half a million Armenians who escaped death were deported to the
Middle East. Some were fortunate enough to escape to the United States.
Madam Speaker, I am thankful that more than a million Armenians
managed to escape the genocide and establish a new life here in the
United States. In my Seventh District in New Jersey, I am proud to
represent a number of Armenian-Americans. They have enriched every
aspect of New Jersey life, from science to commerce to the arts.
Our statements today are intended to preserve the memory of the
Armenian loss and to honor those descendants who have overcome the
atrocities that took their grandparents, their parents, their children,
and their friends. We mark this anniversary each year to remind our
Nation and to teach future generations about the horrors of genocide
and oppression endured by the Armenian people.
We must commit ourselves to ensuring that America remains a beacon of
tolerance and openness and diversity.
Madam Speaker, I commend the commitment of Armenian-Americans who
continue to strive for world recognition of one of the greatest
atrocities of the 20th century.
____________________
EARTH DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as one who came to Congress committed
to having the Federal Government be a better partner in making our
communities more livable, making our families safe, healthy and
economically secure, this last weekend in the celebration of Earth Day
was a special time.
Every April 22, around the world, there is recognition of the Earth
Day celebrations. This was an undertaking that was founded in 1970 by
then U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, who proposed a nationwide
environmental protest to, quote, shake up the political establishment
and force this issue onto the national agenda.
Well, Senator Nelson succeeded, I think, even beyond his
expectations, as he was able to encourage this recognition
internationally. I think it was appropriate that he was awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role as the founder of Earth Day.
This year, as we reviewed the news accounts, there was a great deal
of energy, excitement and indeed some good news for the environment
around the world. Part of it was the environmental activism itself.
There were over 800 rallies held across the United States, and
internationally there were more than 100. In honor of Earth Day, the
Wilderness Society named the White House as an object of their future
concerns about national parks and monuments.
There was in Washington, D.C. a forum on solar energy held to
celebrate the advances made in the technology, economics and prospects
for the use of solar energy. There was a massive Trees Are My Friends
campaign that helped to educate urban residents about the value of
street trees in the urban forest canopy, helping residents connect with
tree care and planning activities in their community.
This last weekend, I joined with people in my community in Portland,
Oregon, to celebrate a successful tree-planting undertaking. They have
successfully planted now 207,000 trees. During the month of April,
citizens in a variety of cities in the West, including Portland,
Seattle and Denver, were engaged in races and walks to raise the
awareness of climate change, to help stop global climate warming.
{time} 2015
There were rallies in India by cycling organizations to push for the
creation of no vehicle zones in major cities. Additionally, there were
events to protest deforestation in Mexico, children rallying for the
protection of endangered species in Estonia and Russia; and there were
tree plantings in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand.
There was good news on the State level. One in particular that caught
my attention was in the State of California where the Department of
Fish and Game has issued draft regulations to protect sea otters and
other marine mammals from deadly gill nets. These regulations are going
to make a huge difference in the protection of marine mammals.
In Massachusetts, that State will become the first on a State level
to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under their own
clean air rules. The new standard, which will go into effect in June,
will also limit mercury emissions, acid rain causing sulfur dioxide,
and smog-causing nitrogen
[[Page 6108]]
oxide. It will apply to the State's dirtiest power plants that are
contributing to global warming.
There were very significant developments in the Pacific Northwest,
including in British Columbia where the government of that province, in
coordination with environmental groups, logging companies and the first
nations of Canada announced the plan to prohibit or defer logging on
3.5 million acres of the Great Bear Rain Forest, an area 4 times the
size of Rhode Island.
This is one of the largest rain forest conservation efforts in North
American history and will protect the only home of the white Spirit
Bear, a rare subspecies of the black bear.
Madam Speaker, on occasion I have taken to this floor because I have
taken offense with some of the activities of this administration as it
relates to the environment. Admittedly, I was more than a little
concerned when some of our predictions were borne out with the release
of President Bush's recommended budget. He has decided to recommend
major cuts in the EPA enforcement budget and to slash by 87 percent a
global tropical forest program which he had endorsed on the campaign
trail, I believe pledging $100 million.
The budget also shows that the President has a mixed reaction to what
is proposed as an energy crisis by recommending that the Department of
Energy research on renewables be slashed by nearly 50 percent and that
energy efficiency funding be cut by 23 percent. It simply, from where I
stand, is a little disappointing to say the least; but I must confess
that there have been a number of announcements and activities from this
administration in the course of Earth Day, Earth Week activities that
do, I think, bear commendation; and I think we should come forward and
express appreciation for steps that are, in fact, positive.
The President announced that he will sign the international agreement
on persistent organic pollutants to halt the worldwide spread of these
dangerous chemicals, such as dioxins. I think that is a positive step.
On Saturday, April 21, the day before Earth Day, at a meeting on free
trade in Quebec, the President promised to link trade with a strong
commitment to protect our environment, a movement that reinforces the
work done by his trade representative, Ambassador Zoellick, who is
working hard to see if we can reach some bipartisan accord to protect
environmental values in the area of trade, and I commend them.
The administration has at least agreed to attend the next round of
international talks on global climate change, even though they continue
their opposition to the Kyoto protocol and have not expressed a
willingness to compromise and a willingness to move forward. I hope
cooler heads will prevail because it is inappropriate for the United
States to abrogate leadership in the international arena.
I appreciated the fact that the President has decided to allow a ban
on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park to take
effect. It was my pleasure recently to meet with Mike Finley, the
outgoing superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, who has done an
outstanding job for the Park Service. This ban was an important part of
Mike's legacy and will phase out snowmobiles in these critical parks in
the next 3 years.
The administration has also decided to uphold a Clinton
administration rule to dramatically expand reporting requirements for
the emissions of lead. This is a step in the right direction to deal
with a serious toxic metal which is linked to learning and behavior
problems.
In the area of wetlands, the administration announced last week that
it will uphold a wetlands development regulation that requires
developers to get an Army Corps of Engineer's permit for various
activities that would modify the wetlands.
And in the area of home appliances, the White House will keep Clinton
administration energy conservation rules on washing machines and water
heaters, measures which will make clothes washers become 22 percent
more efficient by 2004, 35 percent more efficient by 2007, and will
make a big difference in terms of saving energy and conserving water.
While I was disappointed that the administration is weakening the air
conditioning rule by some 50 percent, nonetheless it still represents a
substantial improvement and a move in the right direction.
Madam Speaker, I notice that I have been joined by my colleague, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a gentleman known for his zeal
and concern for protecting the environment and his environmentally
sensitive State, and I would yield to the gentleman for some comments.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon
who has always played such a leadership role on environmental issues
for organizing this special order this evening. It is 2 days after
Earth Day, but this is the first day that we have been back and can
talk about Earth Day.
I want to express my disappointment with the Bush administration and
what has been happening for the last 3 or 4 months since President Bush
took office with regard to environmental issues. Sunday was the 31st
anniversary of Earth Day, and I took part in those first Earth Day
celebrations when I was in college at that time in Vermont.
I have watched pretty much over the 30 or 31 years since the first
Earth Day, we have seen significant progress on environmental concerns.
I know in my own district we have done a lot to clean up the ocean
along the Jersey shore. We have seen the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act, Endangered Species Act, all of these major pieces of
legislation which have made significant progress in cleaning up the
environment.
So it is very disappointing to see President Bush in the actions that
he has taken in the last few months basically, I think, trying to
reverse that trend in very negative ways. I am joining the gentleman
from Oregon tonight in saying that not because I am looking to attack
President Bush and just say the Republicans are bad and be partisan
about it, that is not my goal.
Madam Speaker, what I want to do is see this administration change
course and basically recognize that the environment is a major concern
of the American people and that these problems are not going to go away
and we need to take progressive steps to improve the quality of our
environment.
But it is disappointing, and I want to outline if I could maybe in 5
minutes or so where I see major problems in what the President has done
in the last few months, but at the same time kind of show a bit of
optimism about what I think we can do to change it so that he does not
continue on this course. And I want to talk about energy policy first
and then talk about some other environmental issues.
With regard to energy policy, and you already mentioned it, this
signal about not really caring about global climate change, scrapping
the Kyoto treaty and maybe suggesting that we not talk about it much in
the future, I think is a grave concern.
Also the President's switch on carbon dioxide, to say that is not one
of the air emission controls that we are going to put in place. And
although we have not really received the report, I guess, of Vice
President Cheney's energy task force, that is going to come around mid-
May, we keep hearing that the energy goals of this administration are
more production of fossil fuels rather than conservation, and they do
not talk about increased technological efficiency or much about the use
of renewables.
Much attention has been focused on ANWR, that we should start
drilling in ANWR and possibly other offshore areas around the United
States.
{time} 2030
Mr. Speaker, I find it particularly unfortunate, because we keep
seeing signals at the same time that President Bush is saying these
things and doing these things, these negative things, we keep seeing
signals that the consensus, not only the American people, but the
Congress I think, is very much to the contrary of most of his public
pronouncements.
[[Page 6109]]
I got a little whiff of that again, if you will, this weekend when my
former governor, now the EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman, suggested
that the Bush administration may be backing off from drilling in ANWR.
But as has been the case so often with Mrs. Whitman, the White House
came back after she made those statements and sort of scolded her for
her comments and said that they are going to continue the effort to try
to drill in ANWR and to get congressional authorization to do so.
I think that Whitman was really basically commenting on the political
reality, that the votes are really not there for ANWR in the Senate and
probably not in the House as well. Basically, I think she was
indicating that there really is a consensus in the Congress, I believe
in both Houses, not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I see so many things like that, when we think about every one of
Bush's major pronouncements that I have been critical of: the Kyoto
Treaty, the CO2 emissions. We have to realize that over the last 6
months or over the last year, there has really been a bipartisan
consensus of most Democrats and some pro-environment Republicans, who
have expressed support for the global climate change talks. We have
recognized that this is an issue that we have to deal with.
With regard to CO2 emissions, we have had a number of pieces of
legislation introduced in this House on a bipartisan basis that would
address the CO2 emissions through market trading legislation. I have
introduced a bill like that. I think also, if we look around at some of
the utilities in various parts of the country, including in my home
State of New Jersey, we have seen them start to implement new
technologies that would actually cut down on carbon dioxide emissions.
So it is just very unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that these positive forces, these pro-
environmental forces here in the Congress, have not gone away, and
maybe they are underground right now; but hopefully, over the next few
months or certainly this session of Congress, we will see them come
forward with the support of the American people and demand that we
address global climate change, demand that we address CO2 emissions,
and not allow drilling in the ANWR.
I just wanted to express to my colleague with regard to those energy
issues that I really am a lot more optimistic about what is going to
happen here, even though I keep hearing these negative pronouncements
on the environment from the Bush administration.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to talk about a couple of other areas that
are not energy-related, but fall within the rubric of my subcommittee.
I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Environment
and Hazardous Materials, and we have jurisdiction over Superfund, over
Brownfields, over safe drinking water, and if I could just comment
briefly on some of those issues. It was very disappointing to me to see
President Bush's efforts to tear down the environment and the good
legislation and the good initiatives that we have had in the past also
translated into his budget. I mean, if we look at the budget, it is a
cutback in the Department of Energy, it is also a cutback in the EPA,
the Environmental Protection Agency. In my home State, we have more
Superfund sites than any other State in the country, so we really care
about Superfund and whether the funding is going to be there to
actually do cleanup.
What President Bush proposed in his budget is that for the next
fiscal year, we could clean up only 65 Superfund sites as opposed to
the 85 sites on the average that we have cleaned up in the last 4 years
under the last administration. But even more important, he did not
include the Superfund corporate tax in the budget as a method of paying
for cleanup.
Now, that may have been okay in the last few years when the
Republicans cut it out of the budget that President Clinton submitted,
because we still have money in the trust fund to pay for a significant
portion of Superfund cleanups. But if we do not reauthorize the
corporate tax this year or even next year, we are simply going to run
out of money in 2003. There will not be any money from the Superfund
Trust Fund to pay for cleanups. I do not see us going ahead and
allocating money out of general revenue sources to pay for it. So that
program is also seriously threatened.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Oregon mentioned our problem
with safe drinking water. Again, I could talk about what this
administration is doing not only with standards with regard to arsenic,
but also with the infrastructure. We have heard about the way he just
threw out the arsenic standard and basically was not willing to change
the status quo down to the 10 parts per billion that was recommended by
President Clinton and also by the National Academy of Sciences. Well,
again, I guess in part because the President and this administration
realize that this is a problem that the American people do not like to
ingest arsenic, over the last week or so we have seen the EPA
Administrator, Mrs. Whitman, come out again and say, oh, no, we are
going to set up a new rule, we are going to take a year and study this,
but I promise that by the next year, we will impose a rule that cuts
back at least 60 percent on the existing standard.
Well, I can figure out what 60 percent is of 50 parts per billion,
but I know it does not get down to the 10 parts per billion that
President Clinton proposed. So, again, they are playing games.
She came out and said that she has convened this new panel at the
National Academy of Sciences and asked them to look at the arsenic
standards, but again, I get the impression from what I read and from
what people tell me that this panel is somewhat rigged and that it is
not inclined to adopt a more strict standard.
In the same way, I saw Mrs. Whitman come before our subcommittee a
couple of weeks ago and talk about the tremendous need for resources,
Federal or otherwise, to address the backlog of infrastructure needs
for clean water in various States and various communities around the
country. There was a report that she mentioned actually that came out
in February that identified $102.5 billion in infrastructure needs for
safe drinking water. But when we looked at the Bush budget and when it
came out a couple of weeks ago while we were back in our districts, it
actually level-funded the amount of money that would be available for
these infrastructure needs. So we have $102.5 billion in needs and
authorization in Congress for $1 billion, and Bush's budget comes in at
$823 million.
So needless to say, there is a real gap between what the Bush
administration has said in the past or during the campaign about
environmental issues and what the EPA Administrator continues to say
about concerns that she has for environmental issues, and what this
administration actually does and its actions to address those issues.
I am also concerned about the fact that we have reduced the amount of
funding at the EPA. We are not going to see enforcement of a lot of the
good environmental laws that are on the books. However, again, I do not
think the public is going to stand for this.
I really believe that ultimately this Congress will heed the public's
wishes and not go along with a lot of these pronouncements that are
coming out of the White House. But I know that we have to continue to
identify all of these different negative actions that are being taken
by this administration against the environment, and we have to speak
out and we have to tell people over and over again what they mean,
because a lot of them are not easily explainable and they are happening
so quickly over the last 3 or 4 months of this administration that it
is even hard to keep track of them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon again for his
part and what he is doing to try to bring attention to this. I think we
have an obligation not only today in remembering Earth Day, but
throughout the next 2 years of this session, to constantly focus on
what this administration is doing to gut environmental concerns.
[[Page 6110]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
observations, the hard work that he has done in protecting the
environment, and the admonition that we need to be vigilant not just on
Earth Day, but this is an ongoing effort. I must confess that I share
the gentleman's observation. My assessment is that our commitment is to
protect the environment. I have deep concerns about some of the
administration's policies, as the gentleman mentioned. I hope, however,
that we can on this floor reach common cause across party lines,
geographic and philosophical divides, because the American public
desires that we are able to move forward and be productive in this
fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I came from a very environmentally aware State. I think
we both share that kinship and that consensus. In our State, in Oregon,
much of the environmental leadership transcended party politics. It
came from an era, particularly in the 1970s, where half the time there
was a Republican governor who was working with Democrats in the
legislature; and when the Democrats took control of the State house,
the governorship, it continued on.
Most of the major pieces of legislation that we are working on
actually have bipartisan support, and if we could ever get them to the
floor of this chamber, I think we would find that there would be strong
votes, including significant Republican support.
I think it is important for us to walk that line, to fight back when
there are items that are at odds with what the American public wants.
As the gentleman pointed out with the budget, we need to acknowledge
some of the positive things that are not where that takes place, and
Congress must be willing to step up and lead by example in terms of
walking the walk.
I had a couple of other observations that were positive in nature
that I wanted to share, because I thought they were very significant.
Joe Albaugh, the new director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA, maybe created some waves the last couple of days when
there was high water around Davenport, Iowa, but I think he raised an
important issue about the responsibility of the Federal Government to
help, but not to continue to step in and subsidize areas where it
appears as though people are not moving out of harm's way. There are in
this country over 8,000 properties that have a history of repeated loss
claims from floods. Over the last 8 years, we have lost over $89
billion of damage as a result of flooding. We have lost over 800 lives.
And there are still a number of people who live with Federal subsidy in
places where God has repeatedly shown that he does not want them to
live.
I appreciate that this administration is willing to raise the issue.
In the budget there are some budget savings that have been claimed as a
result of modifying and reforming the Federal flood insurance program.
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have legislation that
we have introduced, the ``Two Floods and You're Out of the Taxpayer
Pocket,'' which would help provide a mechanism to claim the savings
that the administration is interested in; and I appreciate what the
FEMA Director is doing, and I know there will be support in Congress to
come forward to try and make that important reform.
Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure earlier this week to share a platform
with General Robert Flowers, the head of the Corps of Engineers, who
made, I thought, an extraordinary, extraordinary statement. I commend
people to perhaps go to the Web site, to the Corps of Engineers, look
at General Flowers' statement. It was one that I think any Member of
the House of Representatives would have been proud to make. The General
committed to environmental sustainability, that all Corps of Engineers
work will be based on the need for people and nature to coexist in a
healthy, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition; to recognize
the interdependence of activities, that we will recognize
interdependence with nature, we will consider the possibility of
second- and third-order effects on his projects; that the Corps would
be responsible for cumulative impacts.
The Corps would accept responsibility for the consequences of
planning, design, and construction decisions upon the continued
viability of natural systems and human life. The Corps would be
committed to long-term public safety, creating engineered objects of
long-term value; that it would support a systems approach in all
aspects of design and construction.
The Corps will evaluate and optimize the life cycle of products and
processes so that as much as possible, we approach the natural state of
systems in which there is no waste; to understand and utilize the
dynamic nature of the environment. Their products will continue to rely
to the fullest extent possible on renewable energy sources and
recyclable products, and to seek continuous improvements, seeking
constant improvements by sharing, promoting, collaborating and
integrating knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was an outstanding statement by General
Flowers, and I, for one, am standing willing to help him achieve that
with the Corps of Engineers in terms of policy and budget and to make
sure that Congress is supporting, rather than interfering.
{time} 2045
I wanted to acknowledge that as, I thought, one of the most important
statements that I had heard in the course of the week of Earth Day
celebrations.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
he is bringing up, I think, a very important issue. In sort of a
general sense, when we talk about the environment, there are a lot of
new technologies and new ways of doing things that really can make a
difference.
That is one of the reasons I find what I have been seeing from this
administration so disappointing, because I really believe that the
environment and industry or business can work together, and that there
is no reason why a pro-environment position cannot be also a pro-jobs
creation, or a pro-economic development position.
Certainly, when we talk about new technologies, that is so true. Last
week during the congressional recess we did a bus tour, I guess it was
last Wednesday, where myself and the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr.
Holt and Mr. Pascrell, went to various parts of the State to highlight
some of the concerns we had with what the Bush administration was
doing.
One of the stops was in Linden, New Jersey, which is a town that has
a number of utilities and also refineries. We were there with Public
Service Electric and Gas, which is one of our major utilities in the
State. They were actually building a new plant that was going to be
gas-fired, natural gas-fired, and that was replacing some older oil-
burning plants to generate electricity. They estimated that the new
plants would cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide by one-third.
I just could not help it, I am standing there and talking to these
business leaders, people representing the utility, who by no means
would be perceived as Democrats or liberals or anything like that, and
they are just explaining why this can be done and how easy it is to do,
how it saves money and cuts down on carbon dioxide.
For the life of me, I do not understand the theory of this
administration. The gentleman talked about the energy efficiency of air
conditioners, as the gentleman mentioned before. We can talk about so
many ways. In fact, the United States really is taking the leadership
in terms of new technologies that would cut down on air emissions, and
make it so that not only us but other countries would not continue to
contribute so much to the problem of global climate change.
These are new technologies that we can sell to other parts of the
world that would create jobs here at home because they are high-tech.
There is absolutely no reason to perceive that environmental
initiatives are somehow going to be too expensive or lose jobs or hurt
industry. I think it is just the opposite. It is just another reason
why I am very concerned about what is happening with this
administration.
[[Page 6111]]
We talked about the budget. I think the gentleman mentioned
renewables. I believe that with regard to research on renewable
resources, solar power, wind power, that the budget the President came
in with cuts the amount of research money in half.
This morning I was down with the group of American Indians that are
concerned about the environment, I think it is called the National
Tribal Environmental Council. I spoke with them. It is amazing to me,
they were talking about how, with wind resources in the Great Plains
area, we would actually be able to generate enough power through wind
on the Great Plains to produce enough electricity for the whole
continental United States, the 48 States outside of Alaska and Hawaii,
if we were to take that initiative.
The ability and the will is there if only this administration would
wake up. I do not want to keep harping on it, but the gentleman said it
when he pointed out that historically these issues, these environmental
concerns, have been bipartisan.
The great conservationist leader was Teddy Roosevelt. It was Richard
Nixon who signed so many of the environmental laws that we have talked
about tonight in the seventies.
I think what happened, and frankly I am going to be partisan, now,
when we had the changeover in the Congress from Democrat to Republican
and we had Newt Gingrich come in as the Speaker, all of a sudden there
was this great interest on the part of the Republican leadership to do
the bidding of big business, big oil, big mining companies.
That is what we are seeing with President Bush as well. Most of the
decisions that he is making seem to be contrary to a lot of the
Republicans in his own party, but he is catering to the big oil and the
big mining and these other special interests that are very shortsighted
about the future and what can be done.
So again, I know we have to keep up the effort here, but I think
there is good reason to feel that we can change things, because what is
being done by this administration is not only not in the best interests
of the country, but it does not even make sense from an economic
development point of view or a money point of view, ultimately, I do
not think.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.
I was particularly taken by a comment the gentleman made about the
opportunities to build the environment, to create jobs, to build the
economy; that these are things that can be done concurrently and
actually add value, being able to help make our families safe, healthy,
and economically secure.
I had an opportunity this last week to tour a location where actually
what the gentleman is talking about could have a tremendous effect. In
the metropolitan Portland area, across the river, it is not in my
district or in my State but it is a very short journey, there is a
large formerly-used defense facility called Camp Bonneville, 3,800
acres that has been used for the better part of this last century for
military purposes.
The community has a plan where they would like to take this area that
has been off limits, that has not been subjected to development. It has
a potential for wildlife, for recreation, that is almost unsurpassed,
just a few minutes from the core of a major metropolitan area, but it
is going to require that the Department of Defense step up and provide
the resources to decontaminate the area.
We do not know what is on the 3,800 acres. There is not money
budgeted, although we recently had a reversal of a decision by the
Department of Defense to go in and help us with that survey. It is
critical that we examine areas like this.
When they first went in, there were 105-millimeter shells on the
ground that they could find. These are items of high explosives, 7\1/2\
pounds of blasting powder, that could do tremendous damage. Now we have
an opportunity perhaps, if the Department of Defense, the Corps of
Engineers, and this Congress steps forward, to be able to make a
difference for the people in the metropolitan area of Portland-
Vancouver-Washington. But it is an example of what we can do to balance
the environment, provide jobs, and give back precious resources in
terms of open space and redevelopment possibilities.
But while we were on recess this last week, there was finally the
long-awaited report from the General Accounting Office that deals with
the environmental liabilities of just training range cleanup costs. The
report was rather startling. It indicated that while the Department of
Defense thought that its liability for the cleanup of training ranges
was about $14 billion, they find that other estimates show that
liability could well exceed $100 billion just for training range
cleanup. Without complete and accurate data, it is impossible to
determine whether these amounts represent a reasonable estimate, or
what the implications are.
We have not performed a complete inventory of the ranges, identifying
the types and extent of the unexploded ordnance and the associated
contamination. We have a long list of areas that are formerly-used
defense sites, training sites, base closures. We do not have the top
management focus and leadership necessary even to get reliable report
estimates at this point, and sadly, there is no specific program for
unexploded ordnance remediation policy, goals, or program.
Now, we have been writing as Members of Congress, bringing this to
the attention of the appropriators, to our fellow Members of Congress.
This is a situation that affects not just metropolitan Portland, but it
is something that touches people all across the country.
Two weeks ago, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) and I led a trip to the American University campus and Spring
Valley residential development here in the District of Columbia, where
they are still excavating the hillside, removing arsenic. There is a
child care center on the campus of American University that was closed
because of intolerably high arsenic levels.
In our Nation's Capitol, from coast-to-coast, border to border, we
have over 1,000 of these sites that need to be addressed that represent
a threat to the public safety and health, and if done properly,
represent an opportunity to have a transformational effect on
communities in terms of the economic activities associated with cleanup
and then the reuse of these facilities.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, in
my State, of course, we have so many opportunities like that. The list
is endless.
I mentioned that we have more Superfund sites than any other State. I
think we have over 6,000 hazardous waste sites that have been
identified by the State of New Jersey outside of Superfund, most of
which would be eligible for a brownfields initiative. Obviously, the
Federal government needs to do more in that respect, as well.
I would like to think of ways, as the gentleman is pointing out, to
do progressive things on Superfund, on brownfields, on other hazardous
waste and other types of environmental cleanup. That is really what I
hope that the gentleman and I and others who are concerned about the
environment would be concentrating on. We do not want to spend our time
trying to prevent good laws from being gutted, which is essentially
what we have been doing for the last couple of months.
My district, I think the gentleman knows, a significant part of it is
along the Jersey shore, along the ocean. When I was first elected in
1988, I was really elected on an environmental platform, because that
was the year when all of the beaches were closed. The tourism industry
is number one in New Jersey. People think of New Jersey as the
petrochemical State, but we actually earn more dollars in New Jersey
from tourism than even from the petrochemical industry. I think we were
losing $5 billion that summer because the beaches were closed.
A number of initiatives have been taken since then in Congress on a
bipartisan basis, as well as in the State legislature. When the current
EPA administrator, Ms. Whitman, was the
[[Page 6112]]
Governor of New Jersey, she presided over a lot of these initiatives to
clean up the ocean. Yet now we see the opposite happening here on the
Federal level.
One of the things that happened in New Jersey that was used as an
example nationally, and now faces a budget cut, was the Beaches Act.
New Jersey was the first State in the country that passed a law that
said that we had to do testing on a regular basis during the summer
months when people can swim at the Jersey shore. We have to test the
beaches, and if they do not meet a certain Federal standard, then the
beach has to be closed. Rather, we have to test the water, and if it
does not meet a certain standard, the beach has to be closed and it has
to be posted that one cannot bathe. This was a result of the wash-up of
all the debris in 1988.
We put this into effect, and I and some Republicans on the other
side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was a sponsor with
me, we actually moved a bill in the last session of Congress called the
Beaches Act that implemented that nationally. It was signed by
President Clinton I guess in October, before the end of the last
session.
That said that now every State would be mandated to do the same type
of testing for water quality, and close beaches and post signs and
publicly announce if the water quality was not up to snuff.
We authorized $30 million under that legislation that was signed last
fall to implement that program. Again, our EPA administrator, Ms.
Whitman, was touting that program early in this administration, about
how it was a great program and it was modeled after New Jersey. Then
when I saw the budget a couple of weeks ago, I saw that the President's
budget, instead of appropriating $30 million, it appropriated something
like $2 or $3 million, which would not even allow more than a handful
of States to implement the program.
So again, it just seems so unfortunate. I do not want to keep harping
and being so partisan about it, but it just seems so unfortunate that
at a time when there are a lot of progressive things that could be
done, proactive things that could be done around here, like what the
gentleman just described, we still have to talk about just trying to
make sure that things do not get worse.
I do not want to be pessimistic because I am still optimistic, but it
is unfortunate to see what we have had to contend with in the last few
months.
{time} 2100
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's somber
reflections because we need to look at this in a balanced and objective
fashion. I would just conclude my remarks this evening on a note of
optimism and hoping that we will be able to work in a bipartisan
fashion to do something about having the Federal Government step up and
lead by example.
The United States Government is the largest Superfund polluter in the
United States, the government itself. The military waste, the toxics
and explosives that we have littering the landscape constitute a battle
right here on American soil 26 years after the Vietnam war, 56 years
after the conclusion of World War II, 83 years after World War I. It
involves mines and nerve gases and toxics and explosive shells. It has
claimed at least 65 lives that we know of, most of them since World War
II.
There is a strong likelihood, I am told, that there are more people
who have lost their lives that we just as yet do not know about, and
there are many more who have been maimed and injured.
What, I guess, shocked me the most were two young boys who were
killed as a result of an explosive shell that they found in a field in
a subdivision in their hometown of San Diego that was a formerly used
military defense site. Three boys found the shell. They were playing
with it. They detonated it, and two of them were killed. This danger
continues every day. If we are not careful, at the rate we are going,
it could last for another 500 or 1,000 years.
Now, this toxic waste of military activities in the United States
could potentially contaminate 20 to 25 million acres, and some
estimates are as high as 50 million acres. As I pointed out, we do not
have a good inventory. We do not know. But what we do know is, at the
current rate of spending in a budget that is not yet adequate, it will
take centuries, potentially 1,000 years or more to return the land to
safe and productive use and to protect children who may be playing,
wildlife.
Fire fighters in the forests who were a couple of summers ago in a
forest fire in New York State, all of a sudden they were out in the
forest, and there were huge explosions because buried shells from
artillery practice that did not explode were suddenly being detonated
by the forest fire.
Congress needs to report for duty. It needs to provide the
administrative and financial tools that are necessary. What I am
talking about here is not going to affect active ranges and readiness.
My concern is for closed, transferred, and transferring ranges where
the public is already exposed or soon will be.
I hope that we can make every Member of Congress, every aspect of the
Department of Defense, the Corps of Engineers understand what is going
on in each and every one of our States, because every State is at risk.
We can make sure that somebody is in charge, that there is enough
funding, and that we get the job done so that no child will be at risk
of death, dismemberment or serious illness as a result of the United
States Government not cleaning up after itself.
In the course of our conversation this evening, we have talked about
some positive elements and some that were perhaps a little
disconcerting, but I think this is an area that we can commit ourselves
to working in a bipartisan way. I can think of no more positive aspect
for claiming the true purpose and spirit of Earth Day than acting to
make sure that the Federal Government is doing all it can in this
important area.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a little
time, I would say this. The gentleman from Oregon talked about
optimism. I am going to be optimistic in the last thing that I say here
this evening. When I mentioned over the weekend to my children who are
fairly young, I have a daughter who is 7 and a son who just turned 6
and another daughter who is 3, and when I mentioned to them that it was
Earth Day on Sunday, of course they got all excited about it.
But it really dawned on me that they are all in school in some way,
either school or preschool at this point. I have watched over the last
few years that they just have an incredible sort of environmental
consciousness, more so than I do. I do not think it comes from me. I
think it mostly comes from what they learn in school and what they see
on TV. They remind me that one has to recycle this or that. They talk
about the ocean and how it has got to be kept clean. They participated
in a couple of cleanups that we have at this time of year, either along
the beach or in some of the wooded areas.
So I mean there are many things that came out of Earth Day since
1970, the last 31 years, but I think maybe the most important thing is
the education aspect that people, particularly the younger generation,
younger than me, are very environmentally conscious. We talk about how
younger people maybe are not as conscious or politically conscious, but
I definitely believe that they are environmentally conscious.
So I just think that any effort to try to turn back the clock on the
environmental movement is ultimately doomed to failure. So that is my
optimism, and I know that we are here to make sure it is not doomed to
failure, and we are going to keep it up.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Indeed.
____________________
ECONOMY, ENERGY, AND THE DEATH TAX
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from
Colorado
[[Page 6113]]
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
majority leader.
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, good evening. Welcome back to Washington.
As my colleagues know, we have all had about a 2-week recess. I spent
my recess back in the district going around, as many of my colleagues
have done, to town meetings, talking with people on the street and
talking with the different interest groups out in our district and
taking kind of a general overview of several things.
One of them of course is our economy. I had plenty of opportunity to
discuss with people our economy.
I also discussed with many of my constituents our situation with the
energy crisis that we are coming upon. As many of my colleagues know
from their own constituents, we have seen gasoline prices just explode
in the last couple of weeks.
Then of course I heard from a number of people in regards to the
death tax. I went out firsthand and again witnessed the punitive action
that the estate tax, the death tax, has worked upon people of this
country, that has worked upon people of my district, the devastating
results of people who have already paid their tax, who have the
unfortunate situation of a death in their family, and here comes Uncle
Sam to finish the devastation as if the family had not had enough.
So I want to visit about these three issues tonight, about the
economy, about energy, and about the death tax.
Let me start off, first of all, talking on the economy. We have seen
a lot of criticism lately about President Bush. I was listening to
public radio. I listen to public radio quite a bit. I was driving in my
district. Now, mind you, my district is larger geographically than the
State of Florida so I do a lot of drive time in my district. I was
listening to public radio. It is interesting. One of the commentators
on public radio or one of the guests on public radio was talking very
critically of President Bush and how he has soured the economy.
President Bush has been in office, what, 12, 13 weeks. President Bush
was handed this bad economy.
Now, this economy could get a lot worse if we do not do something
pretty quickly. Frankly, I think the responsibility to do something
about this economy falls to some extent on our shoulders in these
Chambers. It falls to also an extent on the shoulders of the President
of the United States. I do not think this President has shunned that
responsibility. In fact I think President Bush has stood up to the
challenge. He started off by proposing a tax cut.
Let me tell my colleagues this tax cut that the President has
proposed, let us put it in its proper proportions. The President has
proposed over a 10-year period, not a 1-year period, over a 10-year
period, a $1.6 trillion tax reduction. Now in addition to that, what he
said is that this tax reduction should benefit the people who pay
taxes. It is not a welfare program intended to go to people who do not
pay taxes. It is a tax reduction program intended to be more equitable
and fair to the taxpayer of this country.
As all of my colleagues and I know in these Chambers, we do not earn
that money. We do not go out and create capital. We do not come up and
figure out a better idea or a better mousetrap. All we do is go out to
those people who toil, who come up with a better mousetrap, who come up
with a better idea, all we do is go out, reach into their pockets, and
tax them. That is where the revenue in here comes.
When we have reached too deep into their pocket, which we have done
over the last few years, do not my colleagues think they ought to be
considered? That is what this tax cut does. It considers that. It says,
if one is a taxpayer, we think there ought to be a little something in
it for one. Now, one does not get the whole piece of pie. That would be
much too imaginative for someone to think that, when the government
taxes one, one is going to get a big chunk of the pie as a taxpayer.
But the President has said one deserves a part of the pie.
Now, what part of the pie is that. Over the next 10 years, to put
this in proportion, over the next 10 years, and the estimates vary a
little bit, but approximately there is going to be $33 trillion coming
to the government from these people out there, the taxpayers, the
citizens of this country who go to work every day, who come up with a
better idea, who put in their shifts, who pay their taxes fairly and
pay their taxes on a timely basis. $33 trillion will be gathered from
those people in the next 10 years.
Of that, if we take a look at the spending that we now have, we take
a look at the spending that is forecast, our guess is we are going to
spend about $28 trillion of that.
So if we have about $33 trillion, and we are going to spend about $28
trillion, that leaves us about $5 trillion in surplus. Of that, the
President has asked for 1.6, $1.6 trillion. About a third of that goes
back to the taxpayer. Now is that too much to ask?
When I was out there visiting with my constituents over this last
recess, I do not think my constituents thought that was too much to
ask. In fact, I found my constituents saying, how do you justify the
level of taxation that you have placed upon us, especially when we talk
about things like the marriage penalty, especially when we talk about
things like the death tax. Are we getting a bang for our dollar back
there in Washington, D.C., Mr. Congressman? That is what those people
wanted to know.
Now as we know, the President's tax policy is a long-term policy.
This plan was designed when he was running for President. It has been
fine-tuned since he has been elected to President. But as we know, we
also need, on top of that, we may need an additional stimulant to put
into the economy.
In order for us to avoid a downward or a spiral so to speak that gets
out of control and takes this economy into a recession, we need to come
up with a strategy. That strategy really is multileveled.
The first level of that strategy is the President's tax reduction,
and everybody in these Chambers ought to be giving serious
consideration to it. I would tell my colleagues, especially the liberal
side of the Democratic Party that opposed any kind of tax reduction,
then came out with their Presidential candidate, and I think the
gentleman proposed a $400 billion tax reduction. Then the next level
was $600 billion. My guess is that before this is over, especially in
light of the current economic situation, that even the liberal
Democrats are going to have to step forward; they are going to have to
step forward and help us institute a tax credit or a tax reduction back
into this economy. We have got to get some stimulation.
On top of that, if this economy continues to sour on us, I think
there is a very justifiable basis for a capital gains reduction; and
many, many millions and millions of people in this country will benefit
almost immediately from a reduction in capital gains taxation, say,
from 20 percent down to about 15 percent.
So the first strategy that we need to invoke to take on this souring
economy is some type of tax reduction.
Now, some of my constituents actually were swayed by this; they have
been swayed by the argument that leaves the money in Washington, D.C.,
that all of us sitting in these Chambers will leave our hands off it.
As I said in countless meetings, it is like leaving a jar of Girl Scout
cookies in the room with me, and I am hungry, and telling me not to
touch them while you go out for a couple of days. Of course they are
going to get eaten. Any money left in Washington, D.C., I guarantee
you, do not let them try to persuade you that it will go to additional
expenditures like education.
{time} 2115
This money will be utilized to provide more pork. This money is being
heavily lobbied for right now, as we speak, by special interests in
this city. Throughout the rest of America where you are providing these
tax dollars for the city of Washington, DC, where your Federal
Government is located, I can assure you that a lot of those tax dollars
are funding, in fact, lobbyists of special interest organizations who
want to spend those dollars.
Do you think there are a lot of people in Washington, DC that want to
see the
[[Page 6114]]
taxpayer get some of those dollars back? Of course they do not. They
want to take those dollars and enhance their special interests. And
they know that in order to convince the American public that those
dollars ought to stay in Washington, DC, instead of a small fraction of
those dollars going back to the people that paid them and sent them
here to Washington, DC, in order to do that, they put up very
persuasive marketing efforts. Do not kid yourself; they are not going
to come out to the taxpayers in Colorado or Wyoming or Utah or
California or Washington; they are not going to come out to those
taxpayers and say, ``Hey, we've got a bad program in Washington, DC we
want you to fund. We want to buy drunks a new car or we want to tear
down the forest with a bunch of money.'' That is not what these
programs are like.
These programs sound good, education, this, that, motherhood and
apple pie. Frankly one of the problems we face back here is a lot of
these programs are in fact good. But the reality of the situation is,
we do not usually have a lot of choices between good and bad programs
back here in Washington. Our choices are generally between good
programs and good programs, and it is a tough decision. But we, in
fact, have to say no. We cannot fund everything that comes into our
office.
As many of my colleagues know on a daily basis, we have requests for
lots and lots of money. We have got to take a serious look. We have got
to tighten our belts just like everybody else, just like the working
families of America have to tighten their belts with this economy
beginning to slow down as it has.
So the first strategy, the first layer of that multilayered strategy
that we must put into place is some type of tax cut that means
something. While we are on that point, do not send out a $300 billion
tax cut to the American taxpayers. That does not do any good for the
economy. You have got to have a tax reduction that means something. You
have got to have something like a capital gains reduction that means
something, getting rid of the marriage tax, which means something out
there, eliminating the death tax which means something out there. A tax
cut that reduces the liability of the taxpayer, not the person that
does not pay taxes but of the taxpayer; make it mean something. That is
how your first layer of a tax cut will help impact this economy in a
positive fashion.
The second thing we have got to see happen, and it is happening as we
speak, is reduction of the interest rate. Now, Alan Greenspan and the
Fed surprised everyone last week with a half a percent reduction in the
prime lending rate, in the prime rate that the Feds put out. Why is
that a surprise? Why do you think it was handled over a telephone call?
Why do you think it was unexpected? Because the Feds, they sense we
have got problems ahead and we need to address it now and we need to
put stimulation into the economy now. So those interest rates are going
to have to come down again.
But how much more room do we have on the interest rates? You can
continue to lower the rates, but at some point the lending institutions
in this country have to have a margin. They cannot loan at zero. Who is
going to put their money out there to loan it at 2 percent where it has
got risk? So at some point the banks, instead of loaning at prime, will
have to loan at prime plus 1 or prime plus 1\1/2\, et cetera. So the
advantage of the reduction in rates can only go so much further. But so
far I think Greenspan is doing a good job.
Now, some will say he should have done it 6 months ago. But I can
tell you 6 months ago, a lot of people were thinking that everything
Greenspan was doing was perfect. So in the world of finance, hindsight
is always perfect. The fact is, Alan Greenspan is participating, he is
addressing this thing I think in a fashion that will help us slow down
this slowdown or level off this slowdown and put us back into a
recovery stage.
The third step that we have to take on this multilayered strategy is
that we have got to control spending. We cannot allow the government to
continue to spend as we spent last year. The 11, 12 percent spending
rate, which by the way is a much higher spending rate than almost every
tax-paying family in America got to enjoy last year, cannot continue
forward with this government. This is not a government that should
continue to spend and spend and spend and spend.
Many of the critics of President Bush's budget and many of the
critics of President Bush's tax reduction are special interest groups
in Washington, DC. Do not kid yourself. Everybody has got special
interests. I have special interests. Water, I worry about water in the
West. I worry about land issues in the West. I worry about education
for my three children. I have a special interest in those areas.
But every special interest is going to have to help participate in
our government attempt to try and level off this slowdown in our
economy. I do not think it is too much to go out, and President Bush
has not gone out and asked a lot from the government. President Bush
has gone out to the government and said, Look, you get to keep all the
money you had last year, Government. But as your leader, as the
President of the United States, I am telling you we cannot continue on
this spending spiral. We cannot go on like that.
I am not asking you to go down. I am asking you at the government
level, let's just knock it down a little. You can go ahead and have
everything you have this year, governmental agencies, but next year we
are going to keep it to a 4 percent increase, 4 cents on the dollar.
I asked when I was in my district how many of my constituents were
going to have a 4 percent increase in their budget next year from their
employer. I did not have very many of them that said they would. I did
not have very many of them that expected they would. So I think it is
entirely reasonable that the President ask that the government
agencies, they too tighten their belts and they too live within a
reasonable spending increase.
Let me tell you one of the favorite ploys that is utilized by special
interests in Washington, D.C. I will use the board here as an example.
This is an old-time trick used in budgeting and used by special
interest groups. Let us say, for example, agency X received $10 in last
year's budget and let us say that agency X this year asked for $20.
They got $10 last year. This year they are asking for $20. Let us say
that the President comes out with his budget and says that agency X
should get $15. They got $10 last year, agency X, they are going to get
$15 this year under the proposed budget, but they wanted $20.
Now, the average American out there calls that a $5 increase. Last
year they got $10; this year they are going to get $15. Do you know
what they do, the lobbyists and the special interests for agency X?
They go out and say, wait a minute, they go out to our constituents,
they go out to the general public and they say, We are getting our
budget cut. You have got to write your Congressman. You have got to
call your Congressman. They are cutting education or they are cutting
water or they are cutting highways or they are cutting the school lunch
program. You name it. You have got to call them. They are cutting us.
Ask them what they really mean by cutting. Has the President in his
budget and have we in Congress really cut their budget or have we
reduced what they have asked for? I think you will find in most cases
the reductions they are talking about are reductions in what they have
asked for, not reductions in what they actually received last year. In
fact, in many of those cases, you will find they actually got an
increase over last year.
Again, there are really three strategies that we have to deploy now.
Again, one of them is to reduce those Federal interest rates. That is
happening.
The second one is to put into place the President's tax cut proposal.
It is going to be modified, but we have got to have it close enough to
his proposal that it is going to make a difference in our economy. And
I think that is going to happen.
And the third thing that we have to do is control government
spending.
[[Page 6115]]
That is going to be our challenge on this House floor. That is the one
burden that is on the shoulders of each and every one of us. We have
got to have enough leadership on both sides. Both sides of the aisle
have to come together.
Now, I realize that the Democrats, especially the liberal leadership
of the Democratic Party, the liberal side of that party, feels that
they are an opposition government and may not join with us; but I can
assure you that there are a number of conservative Democrats, as well
as the Republicans, that will come together to try and control that
government spending. We have got to do it, because if we do not,
everyone in this Nation suffers as a result of this economy slowing
down worse.
The last thing you want this economy to do is to slow down to the
extent that we begin to lose consumer confidence. Last month consumer
confidence was up, but the news released today tells us that consumer
confidence is back down. The consumers have confidence when they have
trust in their government, that government is going to control
spending, when they know they are going to have more dollars in their
pocket as a result of a tax cut and when they know that the interest
rate that they finance their home, that they pay their credit cards,
that they pay for their new car, that that interest rate is going down.
That is what restores or holds consumer confidence. That is the key
ingredient out there for this economy.
Now, let me tell you about a missile we have got in the air. We
really have two missiles right now in the air dealing with the economy.
One is the hoof and mouth disease. Many of you have heard about the
hoof and mouth disease. Let me tell my colleagues, let me distinguish
at the very beginning of these remarks about the hoof and mouth
disease. That is not the mad cow disease. There is a distinct
difference between the mad cow disease and the hoof and mouth disease.
The mad cow disease is a terrible disease. But the hoof and mouth
disease, which is the one we are expecting sooner than later to appear
somewhere in this country, humans do not contact it.
Now, humans can spread it. Humans can spread it simply through touch.
It can be on the bottom of their shoes. This disease can actually
spread through the air for, I think, 10 or 15 miles. But the hoof and
mouth disease is not the deadly mad cow disease.
So when--I am not saying ``if'' because I think it is going to
happen, but when there is an outbreak in this country of the hoof and
mouth disease, the citizens of this country and our constituents should
not panic. We have our Federal agencies coordinating. We have Joe over
at the FEMA, we have the Department of Agriculture, we have the CIA, we
have the Department of Interior. We are putting a lot of resources into
trying to figure out when it hits, how to attack it, how to eliminate
it, how to localize it and how to keep the public relations on it in
such a way that people do not think it is the mad cow disease that has
come into our country.
Now, if in fact we have that hoof and mouth disease and if in fact we
let a phobia come out of that that creates some kind of lack of
consumer confidence or some kind of panic amongst our consumers in
regards to the beef industry, it could have a very negative, dramatic
impact on our economy. I think it is incumbent upon all of us out
there, and our constituents, not to panic if that hoof and mouth
disease ends up in this country, to address it.
It is kind of like responding to a fire. I used to be a volunteer
fireman and I used to be a police officer. The worst thing you can do
as a police officer or a volunteer fireman, or any fireman, is to panic
when you go to the scene of an accident or you go to the scene of a
fire. We have got to remain calm.
Do not panic if this hoof and mouth disease shows up. One, you should
rest assured that at least the government is going to do what we can
do. What we are learning from what is happening over in the United
Kingdom, fortunately we were not the first ones out of the chute this
time. We are learning from their trials and tribulations dealing with
this hoof and mouth. So I think we are going to be able to address it.
But we need help from you, we need help from your constituents and we
need help from the consumers of America. Do not panic. Understand what
it is.
Now, this leads me into the second so-called missile we have in the
air. That is our energy crisis. During my meetings, and even the
preceding speakers before I arrived here this evening, I heard
criticizing the President about the energy policy. What kind of energy
policy did Clinton have? He did not have an energy policy. There has
not been an energy policy in this country for years. President Bush has
only been in office for, what, 12 or 13 weeks and one of the first
mandates this President placed on the American people was the fact we
have to have an energy policy.
{time} 2130
There are some things we should take a look at. We should have a big
table, and we should place everything on the table. It does not mean it
is going to happen, but it means we ought to talk about it. It means
energy ought to be in most discussions we have in this country when we
talk about the economy, when we talk about the health of the country.
What are our energy needs today? What are our energy shortages today?
How are we going to mesh the two of these into the future? What are we
going to do about California?
President Bush on a number of occasions has talked about California.
Now I will say, I do not have a lot of sympathy for California. They
have not allowed a power plant out there for 15 years. They have not
allowed a natural gas transmission line for 8 years, 10 years. Some of
the hardest-hitting radical environmental organizations in the country
come out of California.
We have not had an inland refinery, which these organizations have
opposed, built in this country for 25 years. I do not know how many
years ago a nuclear facility was built.
My point is this: while you may not feel much sympathy for
California, and I do not because they have kind of adopted the not-in-
my-back-yard theory, the fact is that we have to put those emotional
angers or lack of sympathy for a State like California aside.
California is a State in the United States, and a lot of times what
hurts California is going to hurt the rest of us. A lot of times what
is bad for California is bad for the United States. We have to stand
side by side with California. We have to stand side by side with every
State in this Union and, as a team, determine what our energy policy
will be.
That is exactly what the President of the United States has said.
This is the United States. This is a country which as a country must
come up with some type of energy policy. One does not come up with a
credible energy policy by pretending to address things, and not
addressing them, that are somewhat painful. The fact is we are going to
have to explore for more resources.
Conservation is an important issue and conservation can provide some
of that gap that we have today, some of it, but not all of it. When we
sit down and we talk frankly with each other, we know that we have to
find some additional supplies of energy.
Now I heard a quote, I even wrote it down, from one of the previous
speakers. Apparently he has visited some farm where they have enough
wind generation; and he said if we could put this wind generation in
place, it would supply the energy for all of the United States.
Come on. Give me a break. Show me where that is going to happen. If
we had that capability, you do not think we would not have wind
generation in this country right now in vast quantities?
I read an interesting thing, I think in the Wall Street Journal,
today about wind generation. Some of our environmental organizations,
and I think justifiably, are saying about wind generation, you are
killing birds. Unfortunately, you are in a migration path and a lot of
birds are going into your propellers on the wind mills and you can have
acres and acres and acres and
[[Page 6116]]
acres of wind mills and we are not producing much energy. Now that is
not to say that we should not consider wind mill-generated power. We
should. We should consider solar-generated power.
The fact is, we have a gap that we have to fill fairly quickly. The
first way to begin to close that gap is conserve. We all are conserving
right now.
The second way is to put an energy policy in place. Now let me
mention to you why I am saying we are all conserving right now. I do
not know about you, but a year and a half ago at my house, and I live
high in the Rocky Mountains so in the winter it is cold, we need that
heat, I can say that a year and a half ago, I admit it, I probably had
my temperature on 68 degrees, 70 degrees in most of my house; and if I
was chilled, I went into my house, and I did not think anything about
moving the gas thermometer up to 80 or 85 to warm up for 30 minutes or
so.
Well, that is not happening today. In fact, my wife just called me.
She just called me about 2 hours ago and she said, Guess what our
public service utility bill was for last month? 130 bucks.
A month ago it was 500-and-some dollars. We have changed our policies
at our house, at my own home. Now when you go in a room in our house,
we have thermometers that are set at 50 degrees, and maybe one is at 68
degrees. So I think across America all of us are beginning to conserve.
It is an important part of it.
As the President has said, we need to figure out a new source of
energy. Now the President says put it on the table. Let us talk about
ANWR. Let us talk about drilling off the Florida coast. Let us talk
about where we can go and what can the Federal Government do to help
with this energy crisis. Let us talk about lifting sanctions off Iraq
and sanctions off some of the other countries we have that are oil-
producing countries, that might put more oil on to the market as a
result of those sanctions being lifted.
The President did not say let us adopt it. The President did not
issue an executive order which were the favorites of the last
administration we have, I might remind my liberal colleagues. The
President did not say put it in place. He did not issue an executive
order that said do it. He said let us consider it, put it on the table,
put it up for debate.
What happens? How interesting. He puts it on the table, the President
puts it on the table for debate; and the first thing we do is hear
criticism after criticism. Worst environmental President we have ever
had; it is a damage to the environment.
How interesting. These people that are screaming the loudest probably
have their thermometers at 70 degrees at their house. They probably
drive a car. They are probably wearing clothes that were produced by
machinery. I mean, there is lots of energy consumption in this country
by the very people that are being the most critical of this President
who is saying, look, I am not saying we necessarily have to go with
ANWR. I am not saying we necessarily should go off the coast of
Florida. I am saying put it on the table and let us discuss it, because
reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions and reasonable
conclusions lead to reasonable solutions. That is what we have to do.
This energy thing is nothing to laugh about. The situation in
California, sure a lot of us may have chuckled about, well, California
they got what they deserved; but the fact is it hurts California and it
hurts the United States. We need to help California because, in turn,
it helps us.
Take a look at the amount of agriculture that comes out of the State
of California. I read a statistic the other day, and I think my recall
of it is that if California were a country it would be like the third
economic power in the world if it was a country of its own. We cannot
simply disregard California. We cannot discount the problems that
California is having. Nor can we discount the problems of the smallest
State in the Union.
The fact is, we are a Union and we have to come together with an
energy policy; and we expect our President to put forward some kind of
structure so we can have that energy policy, and that is exactly what
this President is doing.
Do you think the liberal Democrats are giving him credit for that?
No, of course they are not. Do you think some of these environmental
organizations, Earth First and some of those type of characters, are
giving him credit? No. They are out there fund-raising by screaming
wolf, crying wolf.
Look, this is going to be a disaster. Where the disaster is going to
come is if we sit and we do not put anything on the table for
discussion and as a result we do not end up with an energy policy. This
country needs it, and I think the President is exercising sound
leadership in going forward.
I noticed a couple of my colleagues criticized, for example, the
Kyoto Treaty. A lot of us now have heard about the Kyoto Treaty. This
is not something that is new, by the way. What should be pointed out,
President Bush did not kill the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty went
down on a 99 to 0 vote. There was not one Democrat Senator, there was
not one Republican Senator, who voted on Kyoto last year or the year
before when it came up for a vote. Ninety-five to 0 is my
understanding, or maybe it was 95 to 0; but I think it was zero in
support of Kyoto.
Why? Because it was not balanced. Why? Because it was not fair to the
United States. Why? Because it put such a burden on the United States
that the United States would be at a distinct disadvantage in this
world. That is why.
So the President, in talking about this, all of a sudden they see an
opportunity to hang something on the President as being anti-
environment. The people out there that are crying against the President
on this environment, they better be prepared to come forward and have
something to put on the table for our energy policy. I invite them to
do that, by the way. I think all of us need to come to that table, but
have something that is going to work.
I noticed that some people criticized the President's reduction in
research in some alternative energy methods. Do you know why? They are
not producing. Research is a nice, magical word; but after all of these
years, after all of the billions of dollars they have put into
particular research, if it is not giving production, if results are not
received out of it, something different has to be done. That is what
the President is proposing.
The easiest thing to do is say, well, I am for more research. It is
easy for every one of us to go back to our districts and say, I am for
more research. I am going to vote for more research for alternative
energy. Count on me. I am going to solve the problem.
That is nothing but a stall. Every one of your constituents ought to
say to you, hey, if you are going to support this research, what
research are you supporting? What kind of results have you gotten? What
kind of date in the future are we going to have this product? What is
it going to mean to the energy gap that we have today? What is it going
to mean for the energy gap that we are going to have tomorrow? You
ought to be able to justify, you ought to be required to justify, the
research dollars that you are spending out there. If you cannot justify
it, stand up.
That is how we got to the car, that is how we got to the airplane,
that is how we got a person to the Moon, that is how we developed
medicine, through research. But many people in the history of this
country have had enough guts to say, look, the money we are spending on
research today is not giving us what we need. Let us try a different
path. Let us use a different approach. Do not keep throwing good money
after bad money.
I think this President has stood up and taken leadership in that
regard.
Now the easiest thing to do would be for the President to say, well,
let us just do like the previous administration, no energy policy. Let
us just pretend that California can work out of this on their own and
it is not going to be a crisis. Let us just pretend that the research
is going to give us the answers, because certainly I can stall it
through the next 8 years of the Presidency. But this President is not
that
[[Page 6117]]
way. This President is a doer, and he wants something done about the
energy crisis, and many of my colleagues on this House floor want
something done about this energy crisis. But we better take it serious
because it is serious out there. The disease, the energy disease, or
whatever you want to call it, the energy shortage or the energy crisis
that is in California today could be on your doorsteps tomorrow.
We need to conserve and we need to explore. We need to find other
sources of energy. We need to look for alternative energy. There has
got to be a combination, and you begin that with a map. It is just like
a road map. We need to take a trip, and we have some pretty tough
terrain to get over. The easiest way for us to take that trip is to
have a road map; and if we do not have a road map, and in this case we
do not have a road map, we do not have an energy policy, we need to
make a road map. That is exactly what this President is proposing. It
does not mean we are going to go over this mountain or that mountain,
but every mountain ought to be laid out on our map. Every mountain
ought to be laid out. Every trail ought to be looked at, to see whether
that is the trail that we should take. That is exactly what the
President is saying we should do. I support the President in regards to
those efforts.
The Death Tax Should be Eliminated
Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I have talked about the economy. I have
talked about the hoof and mouth disease, and we visited a little about
energy. Let me visit a little about another issue that has come up
consistently throughout my district, consistently in my travels
throughout this Nation, and I think most of my colleagues have
experienced it as well. I intend to follow up on my remarks tomorrow
evening from the House floor here, but that is this death tax.
Now some may think that I am being repetitive about this, but there
are some people out there that just do not get it. There are some
people out there that are being swayed by the advertising of the
billionaires who, by the way, not all billionaires but a select group
of billionaires who have taken out ads in the Wall Street Journal and
said we do not need this. To the person, every one of those people that
signed on that Wall Street Journal article or advertisement that there
should be a tax on death, every one of those families has already done
their trust planning, their legal planning. They have had their
attorneys figure out how they pay the least amount, how to protect them
from those taxes upon their death.
{time} 2145
In my opinion, they are acting very hypocritically. After they have
provided protection for themselves and the death tax, they turn around
to us representing the government, they say you should continue this
tax against the rest of America. That is pretty inequitable.
Madam Speaker, I think when you talk about the death or estate tax,
the first step you need to take is ask what is its history. What is its
justification? Should death be a taxable event? Because somebody dies,
should that be a reason for the government to jump in and tax on
property, by the way, which has already been taxed. This property that
we are talking about in my discussions on the death tax, this is not
property which has escaped taxation, this is property which has been
taxed already once but in some cases, two or three times; in some
cases, for multigenerations.
So the first question you ask, should death be a taxable event. I
venture to say that it should not be, no more than we should have a
marriage penalty tax because you get married. This should be a country
that encourages marriage. This should be a country that encourages one
family farm, one generation to move it to the next generation, that one
family business go to the next generation. That is what this country is
about. This country, after all, is built on capitalism. This country is
built on private property rights. This country is built on the concept
that the government works for the people, the people do not work for
the government.
So I do not think that you can justify death as a tax. Do you know
where the history of this came about? It was in the days when people
wanted to move this government towards a socialist-type of
domineerance, to punish the people that were successful, to go after
the Carnegies and the Rockefellers that amassed all of this wealth, and
take that money back for redistribution of wealth. The old theory that
you do not allow a person to be paid based on what they are worth, they
are paid on what they need.
It brings to mind the Ayn Rand book, Atlas Shrugged. Read that book,
colleagues, or listen to Books on Tape. Is that the direction that we
want to go with this death tax. It has certainly been the direction we
have gone since the death tax has been put into place.
Let me say I was at a meeting the other day, and a gentleman asked,
Why do you worry so much about the death tax. Those kids are taken care
of anyway. They do not need all of that money.
That is exactly the point. I am not talking about the billionaires
that signed the ad in the New York Times, I am talking about the
family, the small contractor who owns a pickup, a backhoe, maybe a shed
to do his maintenance in and if he is killed on the job, what about the
family's opportunity the next day to continue that small business. That
is who I care about. That is who I am talking about. And the very point
is those people do need it. Those people do need that business to
continue on to the next generation, and in many cases the families are
dependent upon that business.
I have an entire group of letters here, some of which I am going to
read this evening who are impacted, not billionaires, how this has
affected a lot of your neighbors, especially in an area like my
district. In the Colorado mountains, our real estate values have
continued to spiral at an increasing rate. So we have seen a challenge
the likes we have never seen in the past on our family farms and our
family ranches.
This death tax is not right. I was at another meeting and I had a
lady who was very justified in her thoughts and very professional in
her approach. She said what right do the children have to inherit this
property. I said they have every right, but now I have had second
thoughts about it. Under our concept of government, it is not the
children's right to inherit, it is the parents' right to determine
where their property, which they have accumulated by following the
laws, by working hard, they have accumulated property, it is their
right of private property which is a basic, fundamental part of our
Constitution, a fundamental part of the government that we enjoy is the
right of private property. It is without question, in my opinion, the
right of the person who owns the property to determine where property
will go after their death.
I do not think the government, who did not put out the risk, and the
government had something to do with somebody obtaining property, I
admit that, we have a government of laws, you do not have to worry
about somebody stealing, but that is why you pay taxes. So the
government has already gotten its share of taxes off the private
property. I think it is the right of the owner of that property to
determine to whom and in what amounts that property should pass after
that person's death.
Let me tell you that the hardships, and I have experienced some of
those hardships, I have seen them in the communities, the hardships
that are put on communities cannot be overlooked in this argument of
whether or not a death tax is justified.
These people will argue, this New York Times ad and some of these
multibillionaires that signed this ad, who have already protected or
minimized the impact on their wealth, one of the points they make is
that it only impacts the upper 2 percent of our society.
Let us put aside my arguments, do you have a right to tax death. Let
us put that aside. Let us put aside the inequity of that, and let us
say that 2 percent actually pay it. Take a look at what it does to the
communities that
[[Page 6118]]
those 2 percent live in. That money leaves those communities. If you
have a small community in Iowa, and you have a family who has had a
family farm for a couple of generations and they have seen a small
escalation in property values, and the husband and the wife team that
have made that farm a going operation pass away, and the government
comes in and taxes that property and forces the sale of the farm, what
do you think happens to that money of those 2 percent. Do you think
that it stays in that small town in Iowa? Of course it does not. It is
sucked out of that town in Iowa to Washington, D.C. A small percentage
of it may stay with the State of Iowa. But by far the largest chunk, 75
percent or greater, goes to Washington, D.C.
Do you think the people in these Chambers or these Federal agencies
put those dollars back into that farming community in Iowa? Of course
they do not. That money is taken out of these communities. For all
practical purposes, it is taken from the community forever. Those are
local dollars that go to local charities that provide savings in our
local banks, that allow for productivity, for creation of capital.
Why should the government come in after they have taxed these people
during their entire lifetime, come back and once again upon their death
seize this money. I do not think that you can justify it.
Let me read you a couple of letters that I think kind of hit home.
``Dear sir, My name is Chris Anderson. I am 24 years old, and I
currently run a small mail-order business. I am not a constituent of
yours. I currently reside in New Jersey.'' That is interesting because
the previous speaker was from New Jersey.
``However, I have listened with great interest as you spoke this
evening on the topic of the death tax, as you called it. I in all
likelihood will not face, will not be impacted by the problems you were
outlining, at least not in the near future. I am not in line to inherit
a business. However, I am soon to be married, and I look forward to
having a family and perhaps one day my children will want to follow in
my footsteps with my business. I hope and pray that they will not face
the additional grief caused by the death tax.
``A 55 percent tax is, at best, a huge burden on a family business
and the loved ones of the deceased. At worst, it can be a death blow
that ruins what could otherwise have been the future of yet another
generation. This letter is not a plea for help. I just want to let you
know that although I am not a victim of this tax, I appreciate and
applaud your efforts against it. I firmly believe that Congress and the
government at large needs to recognize that America's future is and
will always be firmly rooted in the success of small business. Many of
these businesses are family owned and need the next generation to
continue them into the future. I spent a few years working for a small
family-owned business, and not just myself but several workers depended
on the income that they derived from working for this small business. I
fear for those workers when the tax man comes knocking.
``This tax has claws that rip at many people, and many more people
than the immediate family of the deceased. It is also a huge impact on
the employees of small businesses. I hope you do the best you can to
eliminate or to do something about this death tax.''
Now, let me read another one. Tomorrow evening, by the way, I want to
go into much more detail about the death tax and other impacts that it
has on a community.
This evening as I read these letters, I begin to feel the hardships
that these families have out there. And every one of you here, you know
of an example where the death tax has devastated a community or
devastated a family. You know how unjustified it can be.
Let me read another letter. ``Roberta and I just finished watching
your death tax speech. We were both very proud to watch you as you
stated some real concerns and problems that we face with this unfair
taxation.''
I want to tell you, Mr. and Mrs. Schaffer, it is an unfair taxation.
It is not only an unfair taxation, it is the most unjustified taxation
in our entire system.
``As you so well know, farming and ranching out here is no slam-dunk.
If our farm is ultimately faced with this death tax, there is
absolutely no way that we could ever afford and justify holding on to
our family farm. This in turn will prevent us from allowing this farm
to go on to future generations. It will keep our farm from becoming one
more development out in the country. In other words, keep it as open
space, and most of us have deep appreciation for open space. It will
not keep it available to the wildlife, the deer and the elk. In fact,
for your interest, we saw over 600 head of elk on the farm this
morning. It will not keep it available for unencumbered natural gas
productions.
``Scott, we are only able to meet the daily operating costs of our
farm under the present economic conditions of agriculture. Unless there
is a positive action taken by Congress on this death tax problem, we
will start having to make necessary plans to arrange our affairs so
that our family can somehow struggle to make it to the next generation.
By the way, there is no way we are going to let you,'' meaning
Washington, ``and the IRS come and take it from us. The government does
not deserve it. Of course, in order to protect our land, it will make
it necessary to begin destruction of the land: The development of one
of the largest open space areas of our county. Our land is quite
valuable if it were broken up into subdivisions, and the only way we
can keep the government's hands off it, if you do not do something
about this death tax, is to break up our farm and sell it as a
subdivision; therefore, having the money to once again pay taxes to the
government on property which has already been taxed.''
Let me read you the next one. Mr. Allen says, ``I am writing to
encourage you to keep up the repeal of the death tax on the front
burner.''
Mr. Allen goes on to say, ``As the owner of a family business, it is
extremely important that upon our death, the business be able to be
passed on to our son and daughter, both of whom work in this business,
without the threat of having to liquidate our business, to sell our
business off to pay inheritance taxes on assets which have already been
taxed by the government. Of all of the taxes we pay, the death tax
truly represents double or triple taxation.
``I am aware that several wealthy people, i.e. William Gates, Sr.,
George Soros, and other multibillionaires, have come out against a
repeal of the death tax. This is one of the most self-serving
demonstrations I have ever seen. They have theirs in trusts. They have
theirs in foundations. They have theirs in offshore accounts. They have
hired a fleet of attorneys to protect their interests; and of course
they will pay little or no tax because they have protected their
assets. Whatever their political motivations are, they certainly do not
represent or speak for the vast majority of small farmers and business
owners in this country. Again, I urge you to push for repeal of the
death tax.''
{time} 2200
This is from Mr. Happy. ``I am watching you as you are talking about
the death tax and the marriage tax. I wish there was some way I could
help you to get these taxes eliminated.''
Mr. Happy goes on to say, ``They are the most discriminatory taxes
and socialistic taxes that our entire system could envision. I can't
for the life of me understand how they got put into place to start
with.''
Well, as I mentioned, Mr. Happy, they got put into place because it
was a way to go after the Carnegies and the Rockefellers. It was when
this country was moving towards a socialistic government. They
certainly did not go into place, Mr. Happy, as a result of the theory
of capitalism.
``How could anyone advocate taxing somebody twice and three times. I
don't care if it is a millionaire or a pauper. It is not the
government's money.'' And in this letter, Mr. Happy has in this, ``It
is not the government's money'' in capital letters.
[[Page 6119]]
Let me repeat what he said: ``How could anyone advocate taxing
someone two or three times. I don't care if it is a millionaire or a
pauper. It is not the government's property. The taxes have been
paid,'' and once again, in full capital letters, the word ``paid.''
``The taxes have been paid. I have been considering divorcing my wife
of 48 years and just living together, filing single tax returns because
of the marriage penalty, or just filing separately. Why should a family
who have been together for 45 years, who have paid taxes on time every
year, be forced into the position of losing the property that they have
spent their entire life accumulating, or be penalized because they have
a marriage of 48 years? Can you answer that?''
Mr. Happy, I cannot answer it, other than the fact to tell you that
there are some people here who believe in the redistribution of wealth,
who believe somehow in justification of a death tax or tax upon
somebody's death.
Let me just wrap this up with one other letter, and then I intend to
continue this later this week, because I feel so strongly about the
fact that the government should not be taxing death. Mr. Frazier writes
me: ``I was encouraged by the State of the Union and the President's
$1.6 trillion in tax relief. We have operated a family partnership
since the 1930s,'' that is what Mr. Frazier says, since the 1930s they
have operated a family ranch. ``My parents died about 5 years apart in
the 1980s and the estate tax on each of their one-fifth interest was
three to four times more than what they paid for the ranch when they
purchased it in 1946.'' In other words, his father and mother, who only
owned one-fifth interest in this ranch, each paid more taxes on their
one-fifth interest than they paid when they originally bought the
ranch.
``Eliminating the death tax and the marriage penalty and reducing tax
rates across the board will go a long ways in providing jobs. This, in
turn, will enable hard-working families in our cattle country to pass
their heritage on to the next generation and to continue to provide
safe, wholesome beef to consumers around the world.''
Remember, a lot of these people, they are not so interested in the
business, it is the heritage of their farms, the heritages of their
businesses that they want to pass to the next generation. That is
something our country should encourage. Heritage has a lot of value.
``I have three sons involved in our operation and a grandson starting
college next fall, and it is important that we keep agriculture viable,
to keep our beef industry from becoming integrated. We need to make it
possible for our youth to be able to stay on our ranches and farms.''
These are not letters that I put together over at my office. These
are letters that have been sent to my office by families in America,
not the multibillionaires that signed that New York Times ad who have
already protected their wealth from government taxation. These are
people whose lives will be devastated because the government continues
on its path of considering death a taxable event.
Well, I have enjoyed my time this evening. We started out by
discussing the economy and we have a multistage strategy that we must
deploy in regards to our economy. We have to continue to have Mr.
Greenspan lower the rates. He is going to do that to the extent that he
can. We have to put a tax cut into place, and we have got to control
government spending.
I moved from our economy to our energy policy this evening. I said
that we need an energy policy. The previous administration did not have
one; this administration in its first few days in office said, we need
an energy policy, and they are willing to stand up and put everything
on the table. Now, that does not mean it is going to be utilized, but
it does mean we can discuss it and we, all of us as a team, Democrats
and Republicans, must come together for an energy policy.
Finally, I have wrapped up with the discussion on the death tax. I
intend later this week when I have an opportunity to speak again to go
into more detail on the severe impact that this death tax has on
American families. It is severe.
____________________
WAKE UP, AMERICA: ENGAGEMENT WITH CHINA HAS FAILED
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ferguson). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) is recognized for half of the remaining time until
midnight, approximately 58 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, one month ago, the Communist regime
that controls the mainland of China attacked an American surveillance
aircraft while it was in international waters. After being knocked out
of the sky, 24 American military personnel, the crew of the
surveillance craft, were held hostage for nearly 2 weeks. The Communist
Chinese blamed us and would not return the crew until the United States
was humiliated before the world.
Wake up, America. What is going on here? Large financial interests in
our country whose only goal is exploiting the cheap, near-slave labor
of China have been leading our country down the path to catastrophe.
How much more proof do we need that the so-called engagement theory is
a total failure? Our massive investment in China, pushed and promoted
by American billionaires and multinational corporations, has created
not a more peaceful, democratic China, but an aggressive nuclear-armed
bully that now threatens the world with its hostile acts and
proliferation. Do the Communist Chinese have to murder American
personnel or attack the United States or our allies with their missiles
before those who blithesomely pontificate about the civilizing benefits
of building the Chinese economy will admit that China for a decade has
been going in the opposite direction than predicted by the so-called
``free traders.''
We have made a monstrous mistake, and if we do not face reality and
change our fundamental policies, instead of peace, there will be
conflict. Instead of democratic reform, we will see a further
retrenchment of a regime that is run by gangsters and thugs, the
world's worst human rights abusers.
Let us go back to basics. The mainland of China is controlled by a
rigid, Stalinistic Communist party. The regime is committing genocide
in Tibet. It is holding as a captive the designated successor of the
Dalai Lama, who is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. By the
way, this person, the designated new leader, is a little boy. They are
holding hostage a little boy in order to terrorize the Tibetan people.
The regime is now, at this moment, arresting thousands of members of
the Falun Gong, which is nothing more threatening than a meditation and
yoga society. Christians of all denominations are being brutalized
unless they register with the state and attend controlled churches.
Just in the last few days, there has been a round-up of Catholics who
were practicing their faith outside of state control. Now they are in a
Chinese prison.
There are no opposition parties in China. There is no free press in
China. China is not a free society under anyone's definition. More
importantly, it is not a society that is evolving toward freedom.
President Richard Nixon first established our ties with the Communist
Chinese in 1972 at the height of the Cold War. That was a brilliant
move. At that particular moment, it was a brilliant move. It enabled us
to play the power of one dictatorship off the power of another
dictatorship. We played one against the other at a time when we had
been weakened by the Vietnam War and at a time when Soviet Russia was
on the offensive.
During the Reagan years, we dramatically expanded our ties to China,
but do not miss the essential fact that justified that relationship and
made it different than what has been going on these last 10 years.
China was at that time, during the Reagan administration, evolving
toward a freer, more open society, a growing democratic movement was
evident, and the United States, our government and our people,
[[Page 6120]]
fostered this movement. Under President Reagan, we brought tens of
thousands of students here, and we sent teams from our National
Endowment for Democracy there. We were working with them to build a
more democratic society, and it looked like that was what was going to
happen. All of this ended, of course, in Tiananmen Square over 10 years
ago.
Thousands of Chinese gathered there in Tiananmen Square in Beijing to
demand a more open and democratic government. For a moment, it appeared
like there had been an historic breakthrough. Then, from out of the
darkness came battle-hardened troops and tanks to wipe out the
opposition. The people who ordered that attack are still holding the
reins of power in China today and, like all other criminals who get
away with scurrilous deeds, they have become emboldened and arrogant.
My only lament is that had Ronald Reagan been President during that
time of Tiananmen Square, things, I think, would have been different;
but he was not. Since that turn of events about 12 years ago, things
have been progressively worse. The repression is more evident than
ever. The belligerence and hostility of Beijing is even more open.
Underscoring the insanity of it all, the Communist Chinese have been
using their huge trade surplus with the United States to upgrade their
military and expand its warfighting capabilities.
Communist China's arsenal of jets, its ballistic missiles, its naval
forces have all been modernized and reinforced. In the last 2 years,
they have purchased destroyers from the former Soviet Union. These
destroyers are armed with Sunburn missiles. These were systems that
were designed during the Cold War by the Russians to destroy American
aircraft carriers.
Yes, the Communist Chinese are arming themselves to sink American
aircraft carriers, to kill thousands upon thousands of American
sailors. Make no mistake about it, China's military might now threatens
America and world peace. If there is a crisis in that part of the world
again, which there will be, we can predict that some day, unlike the
last crisis when American aircraft carriers were able to become a
peaceful element to bring moderation of judgment among the players who
were in conflict, instead, American aircraft carriers will find
themselves vulnerable, and an American President will have to face the
choice of risking the lives of all of those sailors on those aircraft
carriers.
Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that a relatively poor country can
afford to enlarge its military in such a way, to the point that it can
threaten a superpower such as the United States of America?
{time} 2215
Even as China's slide into tyranny and militarism continued in these
last 12 years, the United States government has permitted a totally
indefensible economic rules of engagement to guide our commercial ties
with the mainland of China.
While China was going in the right direction, permitting that country
to have a large trade advantage and thus providing a large reserve of
hard currency may or may not have made sense, as long as China was
going in the right direction and going towards democracy. Maybe we
would like to build up a freer China that way.
But it made no sense, and it still makes no sense, for the United
States to permit a country that is sinking even deeper into tyranny and
into anti-Western hostility to have a huge trade surplus as a resource
to call upon to meet their military needs.
In effect, the Communist Chinese have been using the tens of billions
of dollars of trade surplus with the United States each year to build
their military power and military might so some day the Communist
Chinese might be able to kill millions of our people, or at least to
threaten us to do that in order to back us down into defeat without
ever coming to a fight.
We have essentially been arming and equipping our worst potential
enemy and financing our own destruction. How could we let such a crime
against the security of our country happen? Well, it was argued by some
very sincere people that free trade would bring positive change to
China, and that engagement would civilize the Communist regime.
Even as evidence stacked upon more evidence indicated that China was
not liberalizing, that just the opposite was happening, the barkers for
open markets kept singing their song: ``Most-favored-nation status,
just give us this and things will get better.'' It was nonsense then
and it is nonsense today. But after all that has happened, one would
think that the shame factor would silence these eternal optimists.
Perhaps I am a bit sensitive because, first and foremost, let me
state unequivocally that I consider myself a free trader. Yes, I
believe in free trade between free people. What we should strive for is
to have more and more open trade with all free and democratic
countries, or countries that are heading in the right direction.
I am thus positively inclined towards President Bush's efforts to
establish a free trade zone among the democratic countries in this
hemisphere. I will read the fine print, but my inclination is to
facilitate trade between democracies.
When I say, ``I will read the fine print,'' I will be especially
concerned with a free trade agreement, and I will be looking to that
free trade agreement to make sure that we have protection that our
sensitive technologies, which can be used for military purposes, will
not be transferred from the countries in our hemisphere, democratic
countries in our hemisphere, to China or to any other countries that
are potential enemies of the United States. This will have to be in
that free trade agreement.
There will have to be protections against the transfer of our
technology to our enemies. This is more of a concern following new
science and technology agreements that were signed by China and
countries like Brazil and Venezuela recently. Dictatorships are always
going to try to gain in any agreement that they have with us, and they
are always going to try to manipulate other agreements and the rules of
the game so they can stay in power.
When one applies the rules of free trade to a controlled society, as
we have been told over and over again, more trade, and let us have free
trade with China, that is going to make them more dependent on us and
they will be freer and more prosperous, more likely to be peaceful
people, well, if we apply the rules of free trade to a dictatorship,
ultimately what happens is that it is only free trade in one direction.
On one end we have free people, a democratic people who are not
controlled by their government, and thus are basically unregulated and
are moving forward for their own benefit. But on the other end, the
trade will be controlled and manipulated to ensure that the current
establishment of that country stays in power.
Never has that been more evident than in America's dealing with
Communist China. In this case, it is so very blatant.
Those advocating most-favored-nation status, or as it is called now,
normal trade relations, have always based their case on the boon to our
country represented by the sale of American goods to ``the world's
largest market.'' That is their argument. Here on this floor over and
over and over again we heard people say, ``We have to have these normal
trade relations because we have to sell our products, the products made
by the American people, to the world's largest market.''
That is a great pitch. The only problem is, it is not true. The sale
of U.S.-produced vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, autos, you name the
commercial item, are almost a non-factor in the trade relationship
between our countries. They are a minuscule amount of what is
considered the trade analysis of these two countries.
During these many years that we have given China most-favored-nation
status or normal trade relations, the power elite there never lowered
China's tariffs, and in fact increased the tariffs in some areas, and
erected barriers to prevent the sale of all but a few U.S.-made
products.
[[Page 6121]]
So while we had low tariffs, and intentionally brought our tariffs
down by most-favored-nation, for over a decade, even as China was
slipping more into tyranny, they were permitted to have high tariffs
and block our goods from coming in.
Beijing would not permit its own people to buy American-made consumer
items. They were not looking for a trade relationship with the United
States for their people to be able to buy American products. That is
not what they were looking for. That is not what it was all about. They
knew it, but yet our people were told over and over and over and over
and over again, ``Oh, we have to have most-favored-nation status and
normal trade relations in order to sell American products to the
world's largest market.''
That is not what was going on. It is not what the reality was.
Instead, the Communist Chinese were out to get American money, lots of
it, and American money to build factories, and they wanted the
Americans to build the factories with our technology and our money in
their country.
By the way, many of the factories that were built there were not
built in order to sell products to the Chinese people. Those factories
were built to export products to the United States.
The system that developed with the acquiescence of our government,
and this is no secret, what I am talking about tonight is no secret to
anyone except to the American people, our government acquiesced to this
for years, this policy put the American people, the American working
people, on the losing end of the transformational action in the long
run and sometimes even in the medium run.
The Chinese, because of our low tariffs, flooded our market with
their products, and blocked our goods from entering China, and all the
while we were hearing over and over again, ``We must have most-favored-
nation status in order to sell American products in the world's largest
market.''
They droned on year after year that most-favored-nation status was so
important to selling our products in the world's largest market. I will
just repeat that four or five times, because we must have heard it a
thousand times on this floor, and every time said, I am sure, in
complete sincerity by the people who were expressing it, but were
totally wrong. A very quick look into the statistics could have
indicated that.
By the way, just to let Members know, the people of Taiwan, numbering
22 million people, buy more from us annually than the 1.2 Chinese on
the mainland. The Taiwanese, with 22 million people, buy more consumer
products from us than do 1.2 billion Chinese in the mainland.
What has happened? What has happened as a result of these nonsensical
counterproductive policies, anti-American policies to some degree, even
though our own government has acquiesced in them? It has resulted in a
decline in domestic manufacturing facilities in the United States. In
other words, we have been closing down our factories and putting our
people out of work.
By the way, that does not mean the company is put out of business.
Those factories spring up someplace else. There is this flood of
Chinese products, the factory closes down, and guess where it reopens?
It reopens, yes, in Communist China, using our modern technology and
our capital, which is what the Chinese want to have invested in their
country.
Adding insult to injury, our working people, some of them, whose jobs
are being threatened by imports, our working people are being taxed in
order to provide taxpayer-subsidized loans and loan guarantees for
those corporate leaders wishing to close down their operations in the
United States and set up on the mainland of China.
Even if China was a free country, that would not be a good idea. I do
not believe we should be doing that even for democratic countries. But
for us to do that to a Communist dictatorship or any kind of
dictatorship, to have the American taxpayer subsidize these
investments, taking the risks on the shoulders of the American taxpayer
in order to build the economy of a vicious dictatorship, this is
insane. This is an insane policy. This is not free trade between free
people. It has nothing to do with free trade. It is subsidized trade
with subjugated people.
Companies that were permitted to sell their product to the Chinese in
these last 10 years, and there have been a few, companies like Boeing
who have attempted to sell airplanes to China, have found themselves in
a very bad predicament. As part of the deal enabling them to sell
planes now to Communist China, they have had to set up manufacturing
facilities in China to build the parts, or at least some of the parts
for the airplane.
Thus, over a period of time, what the Chinese have managed to do is
to have the United States just build factories and pay for them. Or, as
part of an agreement to sell the airplane, we have set up an aerospace
industry in China that will compete with our own aerospace industry.
I come from California. I come from a district in which aerospace is
a mighty important part of our economy. I just want to thank all the
people who have permitted this policy, this blackmail of American
companies, to go on under the name, under the guise of free trade. It
is going to sell out our own national interest 10 years down the road
when these people will have a modern aerospace industry building
weapons and being able to undercut our own people. Gee, thanks.
Making matters worse, many of the so-called companies in China that
are partnering with American industrialists, and American
industrialists, when they are going to build in China, are often
required to have a Chinese company as their partner as a prerequisite
to them investing in China, in short order these so-called partners end
up taking over the company. So many of American companies have been
there and have been burned.
Guess what, we look at these private Chinese companies that were
partners with our American firms, we look at them, and what do we find
out? They are not private companies at all. Many of them are
subsidiaries of the People's Liberation Army. That is right, the
Communist Chinese army owns these companies. These are nothing more
than military people in civilian clothing. Their profits end up paying
for weapons targeting America, and we are paying them to build the
companies that make those profits.
Perhaps the most alarming betrayal of American national security
interests surfaced about 5 years ago when some of America's biggest
aerospace firms went into China hoping to use Chinese rockets to launch
American satellites.
{time} 2230
They were trying to make a fast buck. It did not cost them a lot more
to launch satellites here.
Yes, the Chinese were insisting that any satellites we put up for
them be put up on their rockets. I personally thought that, as long as
we made sure there was no technology transfer, that was an okay policy.
As long as we just launched our American satellite which helped them
set up a telephone system or something in China, that is fine if they
never got ahold of it, and that would be okay.
I was guaranteed, along with the other Members of this body, there
would be incredible safeguards. The last administration briefed us on
the safeguards. Then as soon as we approved of letting these satellite
deals go through and our satellites be launched on Chinese rockets, the
administration trash canned all of the safeguards. I do not understand
it. I do not understand why people did this.
But when all was said and done, the Communist Chinese rocket arsenal
was filled with more reliable and more capable rockets, thanks to
Loral, Hughes and other aerospace firms. Communist Chinese rockets,
which were a joke 10 years ago, when Bill Clinton became President of
the United States, they were a joke, 1 out of 10 failed, exploded
before they could get into space. Today they are dramatically more
likely to hit their targets, and they even carry multiple warheads.
Where before they had one warhead and 9 out of 10 would explode, now
about 9 out of 10 get to their target, and some of them are carrying
multiple warheads.
[[Page 6122]]
The Cox report detailed this travesty. We should not forget the Cox
report. Unfortunately, there has been innuendo after innuendo as if the
Cox report has in some way been proven wrong. There are no reports that
indicate that what the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and his task
force proved has in some way been discredited. In fact, there was a
transfer of technology to the Communist Chinese that did great damage
to our national security and put millions of American lives at risk
that did not have to be put at risk.
Yet, even with all this staring Congress in the face, we have
continued to give Most Favored Nations status to China and even now
vote to make them part of the World Trade Organization. Why? One
explanation, well just bad theory. Expanding trade, of course, they
believe will make things better. But expanding trade did not make
things better. Expanding trade with a dictatorship, as I have
mentioned, just expands the power base and solidifies the bad guys in
power.
Of course the other explanation of why all this is going on, why we
end up seeing our national security trashed is pure greed on some
individuals' parts.
Our businessmen have been blinded, not by the dream of selling U.S.-
made products to China as they would have you believe in the debates
here on the floor of the House, but rather blinded by the vision of
using virtually slave labor for quick profits on the mainland of China.
With little or no competition, no negotiators, no lawyers, no
environmental restrictions, no unions, no public consent, it sounds
like a businessman's dream to me. Yes, it is a businessman's dream if
you just blot out the picture of a grinding tyranny and the human
rights abuses that are going on and the horrible threat to the United
States of America that is emerging because of the things that are going
on and the things that are being done.
Because you are a businessman, because you are engaged in making a
profit as we are free to do in the United States does not exempt you
from being a patriot or being loyal to the security interests of the
United States of America.
Today's American overseas businessman quite often is a far cry from
the Yankee clipper captains of days gone by. In those days, our Yankee
clipper ships sailed the ocean, cut through those seas, the Seven Seas.
They were full going over, and they were full coming back. They waived
our flag. Our flag was flying from those clipper ships, and our flag
stood for freedom and justice. Those Yankee clipper captains and those
business entrepreneurs were proud to be Americans.
Today, America's tycoons often see nationalism, read that loyalty to
the United States, as an antiquated notion. They are players in the
global economy now, they feel. Patriotism they believe is old think.
Well, we cannot rely on the decisions of people like this to
determine what the interests of the United States of America is to be.
Yet, the influence of these billionaires and these tycoons, these
people who would be willing to invest in a dictatorship or a democracy,
they could care less which one, they do not care if there is blood
dripping off the hand that hands them the dollar bills, those
individuals influence our government. Their influence on this elected
body is monumental, if not insurmountable at times.
I believe in capitalism. I am a capitalist. I am someone who believes
in the free enterprise system, make no mistake about it. But free is
the ultimate word. People must be free to be involved in enterprise. We
must respect the basic tenets of liberty and justice that have provided
us a country in which people are free to uplift themselves through hard
work and through enterprise.
Today, more often than not, we are talking about how people are
trying to find out ways of manipulating government on how to make a
profit, not how to build a better product that will enrich everyone's
life and make a profit by doing that, which is the essence of the free
enterprise system.
More and more people are not even looking again to this great country
and considering this great country for the role that it is playing in
this world and how important it is and how we should never sacrifice
the security of this country. Because if this country falls, the hope
for freedom and justice everywhere in the world falls. No, instead they
have put their baskets, not in the United States of America, put their
eggs in the basket of globalism. Well, globalism will not work without
democratic reform.
China will corrupt the WTO, the World Trade Organization, just as it
has corrupted the election processes in the United States of America.
You can see it now 20 years from now, maybe 10 years from now, the
panels of the WTO, you know, made up of countries from all over the
world, Latin America, Africa, Middle East. There are members of those
panels making these decisions, they will not have ever been elected by
anybody, much less the people of the United States of America, yet we
will be expected to follow their dictates. Communist China, they will
pay those people off in a heartbeat. Why not? They did it to our
people.
Remember the campaign contributions given to Vice President Gore at
the Buddhist Temple? Remember the money delivered to the Clinton's by
Johnny Chung? Where did that money come from? We are talking about
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where did it come from? It originated
with Chinese military officers. These military officers were wearing
civilian clothes. They were top officers in that part of the People's
Liberation Army that produces missiles. That is where the money came
from, all this while our most deadly missile technology was being
transferred to Communist China. One wonders why the Communist Chinese
leaders are arrogant and think that American leaders are cowards and
corrupt when we let this happen.
Our country has, in short, had a disastrously counterproductive
policy. We have, over the last 10 years, built our worst potential
enemy from a weak, introverted power into a powerful economic military
force, a force that is looking to dominate all of Asia. When I say
worst potential enemy, that is not just my assessment. That is what the
Communist Chinese leaders themselves believe and are planning for.
Why do you think Communist Chinese Boss Jiang Zemin recently visited
Cuba? He was in Cuba with Fidel Castro who hates our guts when he
released the hostages, the American military personnel that he was
holding hostage. What do you think that was all about? He was telling
the whole world we are standing up to the United States of America, and
they are our enemy. He was involved with an activity that was declaring
to the world his hostility towards the United States.
Why, when you have a country like this who are professing hostility
to the United States and doing such as this, why are we permitting them
to buy up ports that will effectively give them control of the Panama
Canal, which is what they did a year and a half ago.
The Panama Canal, the last administration let the Chinese, the
Communist Chinese, through bribery, tremendously expand its power in
Panama and, through bribery, let it get control of the port facilities
at both ends of the Panama Canal. Why would we let such a thing happen?
In many ways, we are repeating history. In the 1920s, Japanese
militarists wiped out Japan's fledgling democratic movement. That it
did. In doing so, it set a course for Japan. Japan then was a racist
power which believed it, too, had a right to dominate Asia. Japanese
militarists also knew that only the United States of America stood in
their way. This is deja vu all over again as Yogi Berra once said.
The Communist Chinese, too, are militarists who seek to dominate
Asia. They think they are racially superior to everyone. They are
unlike their Japanese predecessors, however, willing to go slow, and
they have been going slow. But make no mistake about it, they intend to
dominate Asia, all of it. And even know, their maps claim Siberia,
Mongolia and huge chunks of the South China Sea.
[[Page 6123]]
The confrontation with our surveillance plane must be reviewed in
this perspective if the damage to the United States and the imprudence
and arrogance on the part of the communist Chinese are to be
understood.
China's claim on the South China Sea includes the Spratley Islands. I
have a map of the South China Sea with me tonight. Hainan Island. Our
airplane was intercepted, knocked out of the sky somewhere in here. But
what we are not told about and what the media is not focusing on and no
one has been talking about is this plane was precisely in the waters
between Hainan Island and the Spratley Islands.
For those who do not know what the Spratley Islands are, they are
just a series of reefs that are under water at high tide and at low
tide above water. They are just a short distance, as you can see, this
is here, this is the Philippines; and right about 100 miles offshore,
the Spratley Islands. Yet they are several hundred miles from China.
Yet the Chinese are trying to claim these islands. That is what this
was all about. Not only are these islands, the Spratley Islands, the
home of natural gas and oil deposits, but they are also in a strategic
location.
{time} 2245
The Spratly Islands, having them in China's power, having them being
recognized as part of China, would, of course, be a disaster to the
Philippines whose oil and gas that belongs to, but also it would give
the Communist Chinese sovereignty rights which would permit them to
bracket the South China Sea. China, Hainan Island, the Spratlys would
bracket the South China Sea, from this land point to this land point.
Thus, we have a situation where when China claims, which it does, a
200-mile zone, that would leave China with a stranglehold on the South
China Sea which is one of the most important commercial areas on this
planet. It would have a stranglehold on Japan and Korea.
What do you think our friends in the Persian Gulf, for example, would
think about it if they understood that this was a power play, that what
we had with the surveillance aircraft was a power play? The reason why
the Communist Chinese were demanding an apology then, they were
demanding an apology because supposedly we were in their airspace. If
we apologized, that was a recognition of their sovereignty in
bracketing with the Spratly Islands on one side and Hainan Island on
the other side, bracketing the South China Sea. If we ended up
apologizing to the Communist regime, it would have been taken as a
legal recognition, a small one, of their sovereignty and their 200-mile
limit. That is what this was all about. That is why they were playing
hardball with us.
The American people and our allies are not being told that that is
what the stakes were. This is a long-term effort on the part of the
Communist Chinese to dominate the South China Sea and expand their
power so they could call it maybe the Communist China Sea rather than
the South China Sea. It behooves us to face these facts. That is what
it was all about. That is why they wanted an apology and that is why
they should not have gotten an apology.
I applaud this administration for wording its letter in a way that
was not and could not in any way be interpreted as a recognition of the
Chinese sovereignty over that airspace. An accommodationist policy
toward Communist China, ignoring this type of aggression, ignoring
human rights and democracy concerns while stressing expanded trade, and
even through all this you have a bunch of people saying, ``Oh, isn't it
lucky we have trade relations or we would really be in trouble with the
Communist Chinese.'' Give me a break. But ignoring those other elements
and just stressing trade as part of a so-called engagement theory has
not worked.
The regime in China is more powerful, more belligerent to the United
States and more repressive than ever before. President Bush's decision
in the wake of this incident at Hainan Island to sell an arms package
to Taiwan including destroyers, submarines and an antiaircraft upgrade
was good. At least it shows more moxie than what the last
administration did.
I would have preferred to see the Aegis system be provided to our
Taiwanese friends. But at least we have gone forward with a respectable
arms deal that will help Taiwan defend itself and thus deter military
action in that area.
But after the Hainan Island incident, the very least we should be
doing is canceling all U.S. military exchanges with Communist China. I
mean, I do not know if they are still delivering us those berets or
not, but that is just ridiculous to think that we are getting our
military berets from Communist China. We should cancel all military
exchanges.
The American people should be put on alert that they are in danger if
they travel to the mainland of China. And we should quit using our tax
dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the IMF and the World Bank to
subsidize big business when they want to build a factory in China or in
any other dictatorship.
Why are we helping Vietnam and China? Why are we helping those
dictatorships when nearby people, the people of the Philippines, whom I
just mentioned, who are on the front line against this Communist
aggression, who China is trying to flood drugs into their country. The
Chinese army itself is involved in the drug trade going into the
Philippines.
The Philippines are struggling to have a democracy. They have just
had to remove a president who is being bribed. Bribed by whom? Bribed
by organized crime figures from the mainland of China. When those
people in the Philippines are struggling, why are we not trying to help
them? Let us not encourage American businesses to go to Vietnam or to
Communist China, when you have got people right close by who are
struggling to have a democratic government and love the United States
of America. The people of the Philippines are strong and they love
their freedom and their liberty, but they feel like they have been
abandoned by the United States. And when we help factories to be set up
in China rather than sending work to the Philippines, and they do not
even have the money to buy the weapons to defend themselves in the
Philippines. That is why it is important for us to stand tall, so they
know they can count on us. But they can only count on us if we do what
is right and have the courage to stand up.
The same with China and India. India is not my favorite country in
the world, but I will tell you this much, the Indians are struggling to
have a free and democratic society. They have democratic institutions,
and it is a struggle because they have so many varied people that live
in India. But they are struggling to make their country better and to
have a democratic system and to have rights and have a court system
that functions, to have opposition newspapers. They do not have any of
that in China. Yet instead of helping the Indian people, we are helping
the Communist Chinese people? This is misplaced priorities at best.
Finally, in this atmosphere of turmoil and confrontation, let us
never forget who are our greatest allies, and that is the Chinese
people themselves. Let no mistake in the wording that I have used
tonight indicate that I hold the Chinese people accountable or
synonymous with the Chinese Government or with Beijing or with the
Communist Party in China. The people of China are as freedom-loving and
as pro-American as any people of the world.
The people of China are not separated from the rest of humanity. They
too want freedom and honest government. They want to improve their
lives. They do not want a corrupt dictatorship over them. And any
struggle for peace and prosperity, any plan for our country to try to
bring peace to the world and to bring a better life and to support the
cause of freedom must include the people of China.
We do not want war. We want the people of China to be free. Then we
could have free and open trade because it would be a free country and
it would be free trade between free people instead of this travesty
that we have today, which is a trade policy that strengthens the
dictatorship.
[[Page 6124]]
When the young people of China rose up and gathered together at
Tiananmen Square, they used our Statue of Liberty as a model for their
own goddess of liberty. That was the statue that they held forth. That
was their dream. They dreamed that her torch, the goddess of liberty,
would enlighten all China and they dreamed of a China democratic,
prosperous and free. Our shortsighted policy of subsidized one-way
trade crushes that goddess of liberty every bit as much as those Red
Army tanks did 12 years ago.
Let us reexamine our souls. Let us reexamine our policies. Let us
reach out to the people of China and claim together that we are all
people of this planet, as our forefathers said, we are the ones, we are
the people who have been given by God the rights of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That is not just for Americans. That is for
all the people of the world. And when we recognize that and reach out
with honesty and not for a quick buck, not just to make a quick buck
and then get out, but instead to reach over to those people and help
them build their country, then we will have a future of peace and
prosperity.
It will not happen if we sell out our own national security
interests. It will not happen if we are only siding with the ruling
elite in China. We want to share a world with the people of China. We
are on their side.
Let me say this. That includes those soldiers in the People's
Liberation Army. The people in the People's Liberation Army come from
the population of China. They and those other forces at work in China
should rise up and join with all the other people in the world,
especially the American people, who believe in justice and truth; and
we will wipe away those people at the negotiating table today that
represent both sides of this negotiation, and we will sit face-to-face
with all the people in the world who love justice and freedom and
democracy, just as our forefathers thought was America's rightful role,
and we will build a better world that way.
We will not do it through a World Trade Organization. We will do it
by respecting our own rights and respecting the rights of every other
country and every other people on this planet.
I hope that tonight the American people have heard these words. The
course is not unalterable. This is a new administration. And in this
new administration, I would hope that we reverse these horrible
mistakes that have compromised our national security and undermined the
cause of liberty and justice.
I look forward to working with this administration to doing what is
right for our country and right for the cause of peace and freedom.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Abercrombie (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and until
1:00 p.m. April 25 on account of official business.
Mr. Holden (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
official business.
Ms. Roybal-Allard (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and the
balance of the week on account of illness.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Crowley) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Bonior, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Filner, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Tierney, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Berman, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Clayton, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Maloney of New York, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Visclosky, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Becerra, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Brown of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Crowley, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Weiner, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Dooley of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Radanovich) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Deal of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Radanovich, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Knollenberg, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Sweeney, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Morella, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Royce, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Ramstad, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Horn, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Weldon of Florida, for 5 minutes, April 26.
Mrs. Kelly, for 5 minutes, May 1.
Mr. Kirk, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Ferguson, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Paul, for 5 minutes, on April 25.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED
Concurrent resolutions of the Senate of the following titles were
taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 7. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that the United States should establish an
international education policy to further national security,
foreign policy, and economic competitiveness, promote mutual
understanding and cooperation among nations, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on International Relations; in
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
S. Con. Res. 23. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress with respect to the involvement of the Government
of Libya in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on International
Relations.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House reports that on April 5, 2001 he
presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the
following bills.
H.R. 132. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City,
Hawaii, as the ``Goro Hokama Post Office Building.''
H.R. 395. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 2305 Minton Road in West Melbourne,
Florida, as the ``Ronald W. Reagan Post Office of West
Melbourne, Florida.''
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 57 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 25, 2001,
at 10 a.m.
____________________
BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT FOR THE 106TH
CONGRESS PRIOR TO SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
the committee did on the following date present to the President, for
his approval, bills and a joint resolution of the House of the
following titles:
On December 15, 2000:
H.R. 1653. To complete the orderly withdrawal of the NOAA
from the civil administration of the Pribilof Islands,
Alaska, and to assist in the conservation of coral reefs, and
for other purposes.
H.R. 2903. To reauthorize the Striped Bass Conservation
Act, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4577. Making consolidated appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes.
[[Page 6125]]
H.R. 4656. To authorize the Forest Service to convey
certain lands in the lake Tahoe Basin to the Wahoe County
School District for use as an elementary school site.
H.R. 4942. H.R. Making appropriations for the government of
the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in
whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 5016. To redesignate the facility of the United States
Postal service located at 514 Express Center Road in Chicago,
Illinois, as the ``J.T. Weeker Service Center''.
H.R. 5210. To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located 200 South George Street in York,
Pennsylvania, as the ``George Atlee Goodling Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5461. To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management eliminate the wasteful and
unsortmanlike practice of shark finning.
H.R. 5528. To authorize the construction of a Wakpa Sica
Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierce, South Dakota, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 5630. To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5640. To expand homeownership in the United States,
and for other purposes.
H.J. RES. 133. Making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT FOR THE 106TH CONGRESS SUBSEQUENT TO
SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
the committee did on the following date present to the President, for
his approval, bills and a joint resolution of the House of the
following titles:
On December 20, 2000:
H.R. 207. To amend title 5, United States Code, to make
permanent the authority under which comparability allowances
may be paid to Government physician retirement purposes.
H.R. 1795. To amend the Public Health Service Act to
establish the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering.
H.R. 2570. To require the Secretary of the Interior to
undertake a study regarding methods to commemorate the
national significance of the United States roadways that
comprise the Lincoln Highway, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2816. To establish a grant program to assist State and
local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, and
prosecuting computer crimes.
H.R. 3594. To repeal the modification of the installment
method.
H.R. 3756. To establish a standard time zone for Guam and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 4020. To authorize the addition of land to Sequoia
National Park, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4907. To establish the Jamestown 400th Commemoration
Commission, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
1527. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Department
of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California; Revision of
Handling Requirements for Fresh Nectarines and Peaches
[Docket No. FV01-916-1 IFR] received April 5, 2001, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
1528. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Fenpyroximate; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerance
[OPP-301109; FRL-6773-2] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received April 5,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
1529. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance [OPP-301114;
FRL-6777-6] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received April 5, 2001, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
1530. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Zoxamide 3, 5-dichloro-N- (3-chloro-1-ethyl-1-
methyl-2-oxopropyl) -4-methylbenzamide; Pesticide Tolerance
[OPP-301110; FRL-6774-8] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received April 6,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
1531. A letter from the Chairman and CEO, Farm Credit
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation; Risk-Based
Capital Requirements (RIN: 3052-AB56) received April 6, 2001,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
1532. A letter from the the Director, the Office of
Management and Budget, transmitting the cumulative report on
rescissions and deferrals of budget authority as of April 1,
2001, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 685(e); (H. Doc. No. 107--58); to
the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.
1533. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a request to make funds available for
the Disaster Relief program of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended; (H. Doc. No. 107--59); to the Committee on
Appropriations and ordered to be printed.
1534. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council, transmitting an Annual
Report for FY 2000; to the Committee on Financial Services.
1535. A letter from the Deputy Director, National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Department of
Education, transmitting Final Priorities--Recreational
Programs, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1232(f); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
1536. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Software Quality Assurance--received
April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1537. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Reporting Unofficial Foreign
Travel--received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1538. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule-- Stabilization, Packaging, and
Storage of Plutonium-Bearing Materials [DOE-STD-3013-2000]
received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1539. A letter from the Attorney, NHTSA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 2003
[Docket No. NHTSA-2001-8977] (RIN: 2127-AI35) received April
5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
1540. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production
[FRL-6965-5] (RIN: 2060-AH22) received April 5, 2001,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
1541. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Standards of Performance for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units for Which Construction is Commenced
After September 18, 1978; Standards of Performance for
Industrial--Commercial--Institutional Steam Generating Units
[FRL-6965-4] (RIN: 2060-AE56) received April 5, 2001,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
1542. A letter from the Deputy Associate Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's
final rule--Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plans; Transportation Conformity: Idaho [ID-00-001; FRL-6957-
1] received April 6, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1543. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Avalon, Fountain Valley, Adelanto, Ridgecrest and Riverside,
California) [MM Docket No. 99-329; RM-9701] received April 5,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
1544. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television
Broadcast Stations (Hastings, Nebraska) [MM Docket No. 00-
241; RM-9968] received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1545. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Huachuca City, Arizona) [MM Docket No. 00-208; RM-9977];
(Rio Rico, Arizona) [MM Docket No. 00-209; RM-9978]; (Pine
Level, Alabama) [MM Docket No. 00-211; RM-9993] received
April 5,
[[Page 6126]]
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
1546. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Hinton, Whiting, and Underwood, Iowa; and Blair, Nebraska)
[MM Docket No. 99-94; RM-9532; RM-9834] received April 5,
2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
1547. A letter from the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [CC
Docket No. 96-238] Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to
be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common
Carriers--received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
1548. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting progress toward a negotiated settlement
of the Cyprus question covering the period February 1 through
March 31, 2001, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2373(c); to the
Committee on International Relations.
1549. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a report on the status of efforts to
obtain Iraq's compliance with various resolutions adopted by
the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to 50 U.S.C.
1541; (H. Doc. No. 107--56); to the Committee on
International Relations and ordered to be printed.
1550. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting a 6-month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to significant narcotics
traffickers centered in Colombia that was declared in
Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, pursuant to 50
U.S.C. 1622(d); (H. Doc. No. 107--57); to the Committee on
International Relations and ordered to be printed.
1551. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USAF, Director,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting
notification concerning the Department of the Air Force's
Proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to the
Republic of Korea for defense articles and services
(Transmittal No. 01-06), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to
the Committee on International Relations.
1552. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USAF, Director,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting a report of
enhancement or upgrade of sensitivity of technology or
capability (Transmittal No. 0A-01), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2776(b)(5)(A); to the Committee on International Relations.
1553. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USAF, Director,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting a report of
enhancement or upgrade of sensitivity of technology or
capability (Transmittal No. 0B-01), pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2776(b)(5)(A); to the Committee on International Relations.
1554. A letter from the Lieutentant General, USAF,
Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting
notification concerning the Department of the Navy's proposed
Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to the Republic of
Korea for defense articles and services (Transmittal No. 01-
08), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to the Committee on
International Relations.
1555. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed Manufacturing License Agreement
with the Republic of Korea [Transmittal No. DTC 132-00],
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
1556. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting the second report on the Status Of The
Ratification Of World Intellectual Property Organization
Copyright Treaty and The World Intellectual Property
Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty; to the
Committee on International Relations.
1557. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Entity List: Revisions and
Additions [Docket No. 9704-28099-0127-10] (RIN: 0694-AB60)
received April 9, 2001; to the Committee on International
Relations.
1558. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 13-580, ``Storm
Water Permit Compliance Amendment Act of 2000'' received
April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1);
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1559. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-26, ``Motor
Vehicle Excessive Idling Exemption Temporary Amendment Act of
2001'' received April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section
1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1560. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-27, ``Eastern
Avenue Tour Bus Parking Prohibition Temporary Amendment Act
of 2001'' received April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1561. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-28,
``Medicaid Provider Fraud Prevention Temporary Amendment Act
of 2001'' received April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1562. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-29,
``Homestead and Senior Citizen Real Property Tax Temporary
Act of 2001'' received April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code
section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1563. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-35, ``Closing
of a Public Alley in Square 873, S.O. 99-68 Act of 2001''
received April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--
233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1564. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-36, ``Uniform
Per Student Funding Formula For Public Schools and Public
Charter Schools Temporary Amendment Act of 2001'' received
April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1);
to the Committee on Government Reform.
1565. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-37,
``Attendance and School Safety Temporary Act of 2001''
received April 19, 2001, pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--
233(c)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1566. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia, transmitting a copy of D.C. ACT 14-38, ``Real
Property Tax Clarity and Litter Control Administration
Temporary Amendment Act of 2001'' received April 19, 2001,
pursuant to D.C. Code section 1--233(c)(1); to the Committee
on Government Reform.
1567. A letter from the Comptroller General, General
Accounting Office, transmitting a report on the failure of
the Department of Defense to provide access to certain
records to the General Accounting Office, pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 716(b)(1); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1568. A letter from the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the FY 2000 report pursuant to the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 3512(c)(3); to the Committee on Government Reform.
1569. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting the Department's FY 2000 Annual Program
Performance Report and FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
1570. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for
General Law, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government Reform.
1571. A letter from the Chairman, U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board, transmitting the Board's FY 2000
performance report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
1572. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock in the West Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska
[Docket No. 010112013-1013-01; I.D. 032101H] received April
5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Resources.
1573. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Steller Sea
Lion Research Initiative (SSLRI) [Docket No. 00-1220361; I.D.
022801A] (RIN: 0648-ZB03) received April 13, 2001, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
1574. A letter from the the Chief Justice, the Supreme
Court of the United States, transmitting amendments to the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that have been adopted
by the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2075; (H. Doc. No. 107--
60); to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be
printed.
1575. A letter from the the Chief Justice, the Supreme
Court of the United States, transmitting amendments to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that have been adopted by
the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2072; (H. Doc. No. 107--61);
to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
1576. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Visas: Nonimmigrant Classes; Legal
Immigration Family Equity Act Nonimmigrants, V and K
Classification--received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
1577. A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Army,
Department of Defense, transmitting a report on the
construction of a flood damage reduction project for the
Upper Des Plaines River, Illinois; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1578. A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Army,
Department of Defense, transmitting a report on the
recreation and commercial navigation project at Ponce de Leon
[[Page 6127]]
Inlet, Volusia County, Florida; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
1579. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Establishment of Prohibited Area P-49 Crawford; TX [Docket
No. FAA-2001-9059; Airspace Docket No. 01-AWA-1] (RIN: 2120-
AA66) received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1580. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Establishment of Class E Airspace: Harrisonburg, VA [Airspace
Docket No. 00-AEA-13FR] received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1581. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Establishment of Class E Airspace: Waynesboro, VA [Airspace
Docket No. 01-AEA-14FR] received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
1582. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements--received March 22, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.
1583. A letter from the Co-chair, National Assessment
Synthesis Team and Co-director, The Ecosystems Center, Marine
Biological Laboratory, transmitting a report entitled,
``Climate Change Impacts On The United States: The Potential
Consequences Of Climate Variability And Change''; to the
Committee on Science.
1584. A letter from the Acting Associate Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Emergency
Medical Services and Evacuation-- received April 5, 2001,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Science.
1585. A letter from the Acting Associate Administrator for
Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule--Safety and
Health (Short Form)--received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science.
1586. A letter from the Chief, Regulatory Policy Officer,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule--Puerto
Rican Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes Shipped
From Puerto Rico to the United States [T.D. ATF-444] (RIN:
1512-AC24) received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1587. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Announcement and Report Concerning Pre-Filing Agreements--
received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
1588. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Publication of Inflation Adjustment Factor, Nonconventional
Source Fuel Credit, and Reference Price for Calendar Year
2000--received April 5, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
1589. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Determination of Issue Price in the Case of Certain Debt
Instruments Issued for Property [Rev. Rul. 2001-22] received
April 19, 2001, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
1590. A letter from the Secretary, Department of State,
transmitting a report assessing the voting practices of the
governments of UN member states in the General Assembly and
Security Council for 2000, and evaluating the actions and
responsiveness of those governments to United States policy
on issues of special importance to the United States,
pursuant to Public Law 101-167, section 527(a) (103 Stat.
1222); Public Law 101-246, section 406(a) (104 Stat. 66);
jointly to the Committees on International Relations and
Appropriations.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
[Pursuant to the order of the House on April 3, 2001, the following
reports were filed on April 20, 2001]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 503. A
bill to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from
assault and murder, and for other purposes (Rept. 107-42 Pt.
1). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.J. Res.
41. A resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States with respect to tax limitations; with an
amendment (Rept. 107-43). Referred to the House Calendar, and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 392. A
bill for the relief of Nancy B. Wilson (Rept. 107-44).
Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1209. A
bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
determine whether an alien is a child, for purposes of
classification as an immediate relative, based on the age of
the alien on the date the classification petition with
respect to the alien is filed, and for other purposes (Rept.
107-45). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 863. A
bill to provide grants to ensure increased accountability for
juvenile offenders; with an amendment (Rept. 107-46).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, and ordered to be printed.
[Submitted April 24, 2001]
Mr. HANSEN: Committee on Resources. H.R. 146. A bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls
Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the
National Park System, and for other purposes (Rept. 107-47).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. HANSEN: Committee on Resources. H.R. 309. A bill to
provide for the determination of withholding tax rates under
the Guam income tax (Rept. 107-48). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. H. Res. 118. A resolution
providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 41) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States with respect to tax limitations. (Rept. 107-
49). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mrs. MYRICK: Committee on Rules. H. Res. 119. A resolution
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 503) to amend
title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and
murder, and for other purposes (Rept. 107-50). Referred to
the House Calendar.
DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEE
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII, the Committee on Armed Services
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 503. Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the following action was taken by
the Speaker:
[The following action occurred on April 20, 2001]
H.R. 503. Referral to the Committee on Armed Services
extended for a period ending not later than April 24, 2001.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Ms. VELAZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Gutierrez, and Ms. McKinney):
H.R. 1540. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
prohibit discrimination regarding exposure to hazardous
substances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. EVANS (for himself, Mr. Reyes, and Ms. Brown of
Florida):
H.R. 1541. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs authority to
furnish certain benefits for certain diseases occurring in
children of Vietnam-era veterans upon a determination that
such diseases have a positive association with parental
exposure to a herbicide agent; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. TAUZIN (for himself, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Goodlatte,
Mr. Boucher, Mr. English, Mr. Frost, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Collins, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Fossella,
Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Kind, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Camp,
Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Holden, Mrs. McCarthy
of New York, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Simpson,
Mr. Boyd, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Engel, Mr. Sandlin, Mr.
Everett, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Maloney
of Connecticut, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Cunningham, Mr.
McCrery, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
Bass, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Blunt, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Ryan
of Wisconsin,
[[Page 6128]]
Mr. Quinn, Mr. Baca, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Baker, Mr.
Walsh, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Oxley, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Cooksey, Mr.
Clement, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Schrock, Mr.
Petri, Mr. Watkins, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Hilliard,
Mr. Otter, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Platts, Mr.
Putnam, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Condit, Mr.
Burr of North Carolina, and Mr. Wynn):
H.R. 1542. A bill to deregulate the Internet and high speed
data services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas):
H.R. 1543. A bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
exempt certain communications from the definition of consumer
report, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas:
H.R. 1544. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exempt State and local political committees from
duplicative notification and reporting requirements made
applicable to political organizations by Public Law 106-230;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself and Mr. Graham):
H.R. 1545. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to clarify the exemption from the minimum wage and
overtime compensation requirements of that Act for certain
computer professionals; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 1546. A bill to allow States to spend certain funds to
establish and maintain peer mediation programs; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 1547. A bill to establish a grant program in the
Department of Defense to assist States and local governments
in improving their ability to prevent and respond to domestic
terrorism; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in
addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 1548 A bill to phase out the incineration of solid
waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 1549. A bill to establish a demonstration program to
provide comprehensive health assessments for students; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland:
H.R. 1550. A bill to change the deadline for income tax
returns for calendar year taxpayers from the 15th of April to
the first Monday in November; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BENTSEN:
H.R. 1551. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 to reduce losses caused by repetitive flooding, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. COX (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia):
H.R. 1552. A bill to extend the moratorium enacted by the
Internet Tax Freedom Act through 2006, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DREIER (for himself, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Flake, and
Mr. Honda):
H.R. 1553. A bill to repeal export controls on high
performance computers; to the Committee on International
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FILNER:
H.R. 1554. A bill to provide for a one-year procurement
moratorium for the Marine Corps V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor
aircraft program in order to provide a needed time out and to
allow for a safety and performance reliability evaluation of
that aircraft; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. Tanner, and Mr.
McCrery):
H.R. 1555. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to increase the deduction for meal and entertainment
expenses of small businesses; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. FOLEY (for himself and Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts):
H.R. 1556. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to increase the amount of payment for inpatient
hospital services under the Medicare Program, and to freeze
the reduction in payments to hospitals for indirect costs of
medical education; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GRAHAM:
H.R. 1557. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to permit local educational agencies to
use funds made available under the innovative education
program to support certain community service programs; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. HILLIARD (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Clyburn, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Frank, Ms.
Carson of Indiana, Mr. Clay, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Jefferson, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Wynn, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Ms. Lee, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Nadler, and Mrs.
Christensen):
H.R. 1558. A bill to prohibit States from denying any
individual the right to register to vote for an election for
Federal office, or the right to vote in an election for
Federal office, on the grounds that the individual has been
convicted of a Federal crime, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HILLIARD (for himself, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Ms. Lee, Ms. McKinney, Mrs.
Christensen, and Mr. Jackson of Illinois):
H.R. 1559. A bill to require that general Federal elections
be held over the 48-hour period that begins with the first
Saturday in November, to prohibit States from preventing
citizens who are registered to vote from voting in Federal
elections and from carrying out certain law enforcement
activities which have the effect of intimidating individuals
from voting, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 1560. A bill to increase the numerical limitation on
the number of asylees whose status may be adjusted to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself and Mr.
Serrano):
H.R. 1561. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act with respect to the record of admission for permanent
residence in the case of certain aliens; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 1562. A bill to replace the Immigration and
Naturalization Service with the Office of the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, the Bureau of
Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration
Enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Government
Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself and Mr.
Serrano):
H.R. 1563. A bill to assist aliens who were transplanted to
the United States as children in continuing their education
and otherwise integrating into American society; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Frost, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Sawyer,
and Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 1564. A bill to fund capital projects of State and
local governments, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committees on Financial Services, and the Budget, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. LaHOOD:
H.R. 1565. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to
Brian Lamb; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. LEACH:
H.R. 1566. A bill to urge the President to initiate
consultations with the Governments of Singapore, Australia,
and New Zealand to determine the feasibility and desirability
of negotiations to create a free trade area between the
United States and those countries; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Ms. LEE (for herself and Ms. Waters):
H.R. 1567. A bill to encourage the provision of
multilateral debt cancellation for countries eligible to be
considered for assistance under the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) Initiative or heavily affected by HIV/
[[Page 6129]]
AIDS, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial
Services.
By Mr. McDERMOTT (for himself, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr.
Kleczka, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Frost, Mr. Brown of Ohio,
Mr. Frank, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Wexler, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Moakley, Mr. Evans, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Clay, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Rush,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Sandlin, Mrs. Thurman,
Mr. LaFalce, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Kildee,
Mr. LaTourette, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr.
Hilliard, and Mr. Moran of Virginia):
H.R. 1568. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to remove the restriction on coverage of
periodic health examinations under the Medicare Program; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 1569. A bill to establish a commission to study the
establishment of a national education museum and archive for
the United States; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 1570. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to provide up-to-date school library
media resources and well-trained, professionally certified
school library media specialists for elementary schools and
secondary schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 1571. A bill to provide for permanent resident status
for any alien orphan physically present in the United States
who is less than 12 years of age and to provide for deferred
enforced departure status for any alien physically present in
the United States who is the natural and legal parent of a
child born in the United States who is less than 18 years of
age; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 1572. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for legal permanent resident status for
certain undocumented or nonimmigrant aliens; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 1573. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide more revenue for the Social Security system
by imposing a tax on certain unearned income and to provide
tax relief for more than 80,000,000 individuals and families
who pay more in Social Security taxes than income taxes by
reducing the rate of the old age, survivors, and disability
insurance Social Security payroll tax; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 1574. A bill to provide for prices of pharmaceutical
products that are fair to the producer and the consumer, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER:
H.R. 1575. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to suspend all motor fuel taxes for six months, and to
permanently repeal the 4.3-cent per gallon increases in motor
fuel taxes enacted in 1993; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado:
H.R. 1576. A bill to designate the James Peak Wilderness
and Protection Area in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National
Forests in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. Frank, Mr. Collins,
Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Hilleary, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Jenkins, Mr.
Kleczka, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Rahall, Ms.
Hart, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Burr
of North Carolina, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Ney, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Jones of North Carolina, Mr. English, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
McHugh, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Camp, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Royce, Mr.
Souder, and Mr. Tanner):
H.R. 1577. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
require Federal Prison Industries to compete for its
contracts minimizing its unfair competition with non-inmate
workers and the firms that employ them and increasing the
likelihood that Federal agencies get the best value for
taxpayers dollars, to require that Federal Prison Industries
fully and timely perform its Government contracts by
empowering Federal contracting officers with the contract
administration tools generally available to assure full and
timely performance of other Government contracts, to enhance
the opportunities for effective public participation in
decisions to expand the activities of Federal Prison
Industries, to provide to Federal agencies temporary
preferential contract award authority to ease the transition
of Federal Prison Industries to obtaining inmate work
opportunities through other than its mandatory source status,
to provide additional work opportunities for Federal inmates
by authorizing Federal Prison Industries to provide inmate
workers to nonprofit entities with protections against
commercial activities, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STEARNS:
H. Con. Res. 105. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the Congress should have the power
to prohibit desecration of the flag of the United States; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRUCCI (for himself and Mr. English):
H. Res. 120. Resolution urging cemeteries to maintain the
flags placed on the grave sites of American veterans on
Memorial Day through at least May 31; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Bonior, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Evans, Mr. Filner, Ms. Kaptur,
Mr. Kildee, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Payne, Ms.
Sanchez, Mr. Shows, Mr. Ms. Solis, and Mr. Stark):
H. Res. 121. Resolution expressing the sincerest
condolences of the House of Representatives to the families
of the 42 people, including 37 children, killed in the March
6, 2001, explosion of the Fanglin elementary school in the
Jianxi province of the People's Republic of China, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on International Relations,
and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PALLONE:
H. Res. 122. Resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that India should be a permanent member of
the United Nations Security Council; to the Committee on
International Relations.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
24. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, relative to Resolution 8
memorializing the United States Congress to enact H.R. 1041
that amends section 1917(b)(1)(c) of the Social Security Act
by deleting the date of May 14, 1993, for states to have long
term care partnership plans approved, affording states
throughout the nation the ability to give their citizens the
same rights to participate in these types of programs; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
25. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of North Dakota, relative to Resolution No. 4028
memorializing the United States Congress to call a convention
pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
26. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Indiana, relative to Resolution 22 memorializing the
United States Congress to rename the Federal Building in New
Albany, Indiana, in honor of former Congressman Lee Hamilton;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
27. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Ohio, relative to Resolution 8 memorializing the
United States Congress to take all actions that are necessary
to stop the dumping of foreign steel in the United States,
including the amendment of existing foreign trade laws or the
enactment of new foreign trade law to address the crisis in
the steel industry; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
28. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Michigan, relative to Resolution 40 memorializing
the United States Congress to repeal the federal excise tax
on telephone and other communications services; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
29. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Wyoming, relative to a Resolution memorializing the United
States Congress to immediately secure the construction of
critically needed new electric generation facilities, oil,
and gas pipeline and transmission facilities using Wyoming
Power River Basin super compliant coal, Wyoming gas and other
available Wyoming natural resources; jointly to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Transportation and
Infrastructure.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, private bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. GONZALEZ:
H.R. 1578. A bill for the relief of Abecnego Monje Ortiz,
Dolores Ortiz, and Eneyda
[[Page 6130]]
Monje Ortiz; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GUTIERREZ:
H.R. 1579. A bill for the relief of Juan Gonzalez and Mayra
Valenzuela; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 7: Mr. Pitts, Mr. Kolbe, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Green of
Wisconsin, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr.
Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and Mr.
Crenshaw.
H.R. 10: Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Hansen, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Grucci, Mr. Gilman, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Rehberg, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Johnson of
Illinois.
H.R. 13: Mr. McHugh and Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 17: Mr. Waxman, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr.
Petri, and Mr. Ford.
H.R. 25: Mrs. Roukema.
H.R. 28: Mr. Rahall and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 31: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina, Mr. Condit, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Watkins,
and Mr. Bilirakis.
H.R. 36: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Ehlers.
H.R. 37: Mr. Cannon and Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 39: Mr. Tiahrt Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 41: Mr. Cardin, Ms. Woolsey, and Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 46: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 65: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 68: Mr. Goode, Mr. Stenholm, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Price of
North Carolina.
H.R. 80: Mr. Cox.
H.R. 82: Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 115: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 117: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Wu, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 144: Ms. Rivers.
H.R. 162: Mr. Luther, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Cardin, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Carson of Oklahoma, Mr.
Hoeffel, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Tauscher,
Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Borski, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Pascrell,
Mr. Costello, and Mr. Blagojevich.
H.R. 168: Mr. Crenshaw and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 175: Mr. Hefley, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Souder, Mr.
Blunt, and Mr. Culberson.
H.R. 179: Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Ms. Eshoo,
Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
H.R. 187: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 214: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 218: Mr. King, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr.
Hostettler, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Clement, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Maloney of
Connecticut, and Mr. Cox.
H.R. 250: Mr. Snyder, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
Matheson, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Markey, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island, Mr. Sabo, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. John, Mr. Duncan,
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 259: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 261: Mr. Lewis of California and Mr. Cox.
H.R. 267: Mr. Hobson, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Young of
Alaska, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Davis of Florida, and Mr.
Hilliard.
H.R. 280: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland and Mr. Linder.
H.R. 281: Mr. Hilleary.
H.R. 293: Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. McDermott, Ms.
Sanchez, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Bonior, and Ms.
Slaughter.
H.R. 294: Mr. Rehberg.
H.R. 296: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 298: Mr. Souder, Mr. Frank, Ms. Hart, and Mr.
Costello.
H.R. 303: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Goss, Mr.
Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Largent, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut,
Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Price of
North Carolina, Mr. Hinojosa, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Honda, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Israel, and Mr. Dooley
of California.
H.R. 318: Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr.
Ferguson, and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 336: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 348: Mr. Deutsch.
H.R. 429: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 436: Mr. Platts, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Hoeffel, and Mr.
Capuano.
H.R. 458: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. English, and Mr.
Sessions.
H.R. 476: Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 478: Mr. Boyd.
H.R. 500: Ms. McKinney, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 503: Mr. Wolf, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Graves, Mr. Pickering,
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 510: Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Berry.
H.R. 512: Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Bonior, and Mr.
Boehlert.
H.R. 513: Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Boehlert, Ms. Norton, and
Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 516: Mr. Murtha.
H.R. 525: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 526: Mr. Snyder, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Ross, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, and Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 527: Mr. Herger, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr. Simpson.
H.R. 542: Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 548: Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Wilson,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Carson
of Oklahoma, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Wicker,
Mr. Holt, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Frank,
Mr. Paul, Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Young of
Alaska, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Baird, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Tancredo, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Smith
of New Jersey, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr.
Crenshaw, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Ross, Ms. Pelosi, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Sanders, and Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 549: Mr. Houghton, Mr. Ney, and Mr. Gekas.
H.R. 566: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 572: Mr. Manzullo, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 582: Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Holden, and Mrs.
Thurman.
H.R. 586: Mr. Osborne, Mrs. Clayton, and Mr. Udall of
Colorado.
H.R. 595: Ms. McKinney, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. King, Mr. Schiff,
Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Langevin, and Mr. Evans.
H.R. 599: Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Woolsey, Mrs. Davis of
California, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Bonior, Mrs.
Morella, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 602: Ms. Hart, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 604: Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr.
Kildee, Mr. Lantos, and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 606: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Owens, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Berry, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Costello, and Mr.
Hutchinson.
H.R. 608: Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 612: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Kucinich, Mr.
Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Ney, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 619: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 623: Mrs. Tauscher.
H.R. 631: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 639: Mr. Foley, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mrs. Thurman,
Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 661: Mr. Ganske, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr. Portman.
H.R. 663: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Holden, and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 665: Mr. Bishop, Mrs. Clayton, Mrs. Davis of
California, Ms. Harman, Mr. Israel, Mr. Levin, Ms. Lofgren,
and Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 682: Mr. Sabo.
H.R. 687: Mr. Engel, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Honda.
H.R. 730: Mr. Boucher and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 737: Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Johnson of Illinois,
Mr. Honda, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Berry, and Mr.
Holden.
H.R. 746: Mr. Kerns and Mr. Tiahrt.
H.R. 747: Mr. Cox.
H.R. 752: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 755: Mr. Sabo, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Boucher,
and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 760: Mr. Holden and Mr. Shays.
H.R. 762: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 770: Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of
Virginia, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mrs. McCarthy of
New York.
H.R. 778: Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Harman, Ms. Slaughter, and Ms.
McCollum.
H.R. 782: Ms. Hart, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Farr of California, Mr.
Stark, and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 783: Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 786: Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Pelosi.
H.R. 792: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ms. Rivers, Mr.
McDermott, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 805: Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Hill.
H.R. 817: Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, and Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 822: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Langevin, and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island.
H.R. 826: Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Goode, Mr. Souder, Mr. Ryun of
Kansas, and Mr. Smith of Michigan.
H.R. 827: Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 831: Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Horn, Mr. McHugh, Mr. McGovern,
Mr. Rahall, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Ramstad, Mr.
Hobson, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Gordon,
Mr. Baca, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Wexler, Ms.
Hart, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Ehrlich, Mr. Moakley, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Moran
of Kansas, and Mrs. Napolitano.
[[Page 6131]]
H.R. 840: Mrs. Morella, Mr. Ramstad, and Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 844: Mr. King, Mr. Frank, Mr. McNulty, Mr. English,
Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 862: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 868: Mr. Nussle, Mr. Pence, Mrs. Emerson, Mr.
Traficant, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Ms. DeLauro,
Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Holden,
Mr. Stump, Mr. Lantos, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 869: Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mrs. Morella, and Ms.
Hart.
H.R. 876: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Dicks, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Stenholm, and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 877: Mr. Ryun of Kansas and Mr. Tiahrt.
H.R. 885: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 906: Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Grucci, Mr. Hoeffel, and Mr.
Blumenauer.
H.R. 912: Mr. Portman, Mr. Kleczka, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Rush, and Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 917: Mr. Sabo.
H.R. 921: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 931: Mr. Armey, Mr. Blunt, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr.
Doyle, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 933: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr.
Pallone.
H.R. 937: Mr. Stump.
H.R. 948: Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Frank, Mr.
Lantos, Mr. Rahall, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Holden, Mr. Clay, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms.
Rivers.
H.R. 951: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Toomey, Mr. Largent, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Mrs. Thurman, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Sanders, Mrs.
Morella, Mr. Bishop, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Frank.
H.R. 952: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
Blunt, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mrs. Capps,
Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Gephardt, and Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts.
H.R. 954: Mr. Strickland, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Boehlert, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Wu,
Mr. Dicks, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Payne, and Mrs. Davis of
California.
H.R. 962: Mr. Rush.
H.R. 967: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Bonior,
Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Goode,
Mr. King, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Gallegly, and Ms.
McCollum.
H.R. 968: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr.
Paul, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Costello, Mr. Schrock, and Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 969: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Ney, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr.
Buyer.
H.R. 1001: Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 1004: Mr. Clyburn.
H.R. 1016: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 1018: Mr. Tiberi.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Holden, Mr. Filner, Mr. Platts,
Mr. Ross, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bass, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Hart, Mr.
Baldacci, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Tiahrt,
Mr. Petri, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Hayes, Mr. English, Mr. Hill,
Mr. Herger, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Gekas.
H.R. 1029: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Cantor, Mr. Tiahrt, and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1051: Mr. George Miller of California and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1052: Mr. Kanjorski and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1053: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. George Miller of
California, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1054: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. George Miller of
California, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1055: Mr. George Miller of California and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1056: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. George Miller of
California, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1057: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. George Miller of
California, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1058: Mr. George Miller of California and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1059: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1060: Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. George Miller of California,
and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1061: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. George Miller of
California, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1072: Mr. Blagojevich and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 1076: Mr. Payne, Ms. Waters, Ms. Rivers, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hinchey, Mr.
Strickland, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Ms. Millender-McDonald,
Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Traficant, and Mr. Ackerman.
H.R. 1082: Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Terry,
Mr. Putnam, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Lathan.
H.R. 1083: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1084: Ms. Kaptur.
H.R. 1086: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 1097: Mr. McKeon, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Berman, Mr. Coyne,
Ms. McKinney, and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1112: Mr. Stark, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 1116: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 1121: Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. LaTourette, Mr.
Hinchey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Baldacci,
Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Kaptur, and Ms.
McKinney.
H.R. 1136: Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 1137: Mr. Hefley, Ms. Hart, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. Moran
of Virginia.
H.R. 1138: Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Young
of Alaska, Mr. Pickering, and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 1140: Mr. Combest, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Kennedy of
Minnesota, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Rehberg, Mrs. Bono, Mr.
Manzullo, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr.
Portman, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Putnam,
Mr. Coble, Mr. Stump, Mr. Tiberi, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hansen,
Mr. McInnis, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Capps, Ms.
McCarthy of Missouri, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Rivers, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Levin, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Smith of Washington, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Ms. Lofgren, and Mr.
Serrano.
H.R. 1143: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Davis
of Florida, Mr. Rush, Mr. Baca, Mr. Quinn, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Frank, Mr. Stark, Mr. Towns, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 1147: Mr. Greenwood and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 1155: Mr. Becerra, Mr. Kind, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri,
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Mascara, Mr.
Boswell, and Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 1160: Mr. Sabo.
H.R. 1165: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1170: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Farr of California, Mr.
Ross, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Engel, Mrs. Capps, Mr. George
Miller of California, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1177: Ms. Eshoo and Mrs. Morella.
H.R. 1182: Mr. Toomey.
H.R. 1184: Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Langevin, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 1187: Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Schiff, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Borski.
H.R. 1192: Ms. McCollum, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Kucinich, Ms.
Brown of Florida, Mr. Shows, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Andrews,
Mr. Matsui, Mr. Carson of Oklahoma, Mr. Johnson of Illinois,
Ms. Rivers, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Markey, Mr. Ford, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1194: Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Portman, and Mr.
Tierney.
H.R. 1227: Mr. Barr of Georgia.
H.R. 1234: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Meeks of New York,
and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 1238: Mr. Coyne, Mrs. Morella, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 1242: Mr. Towns, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mrs. Maloney
of New York, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Nadler, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Terry, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Capuano,
and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 1252: Mr. Saxton, Mr. Holt, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr.
Frank, Mr. Owens, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Brown of
Florida, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Rahall, Ms. Harman, Mr. Pascrell,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Frost, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Farr of California,
Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Solis, Mr.
Visclosky, Mrs. Clayton, Mrs. Maloney of New York, and Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 1255: Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Rush, and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 1271: Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1275: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Strickland, Ms.
McKinney, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Filner, and Mr. Smith
of New Jersey.
H.R. 1276: Ms. Kaptur and Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1280: Ms. Hart, Ms. Norton, Mr. Baca, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, and Mr. Frank.
H.R. 1291: Ms. Hart, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Baca, Mr. Bonior, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Goode, and Ms. Roybal-
Allard.
H.R. 1296: Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Gonzalez, Mrs. Emerson, Mr.
Barton of Texas, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Petri, Mr. Smith of Texas,
and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 1305: Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Burr of
North Carolina, Mr. Clay, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Collins, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Nussle,
Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Tiberi, and Mr.
Vitter.
H.R. 1306: Mr. Stark, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 1307: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Baldacci, Mr.
McGovern, Ms. Lee mr. Hinckey, Mr. Hilliard and Mr. George
Miller of California
H.R. 1313: Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 1324: Mr. Ross, Mr. Carson of Oklahoma, Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii, Mr. Acevedo-Vila, and Mr. Bonilla.
H.R. 1328: Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Ganske, Mr.
Ney, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. LaTourette, Ms. Millender-McDonald, and
Mr. Baca.
H.R. 1330: Mr. Borski, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Sandlin,
Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Filner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Bonior,
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Honda, Mr. Price of North Carolina, and Mr.
Brown of Ohio.
[[Page 6132]]
H.R. 1335: Ms. DeLauro and Mrs. Mink of Hawaii.
H.R. 1340: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 1351: Mr. Owens.
H.R. 1354: Mr. Wynn, Mr. McDermott, Mr. LaTourette, Ms.
McKinney, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Rush, Mrs.
Morella, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Baldacci, and
Mr. Towns.
H.R. 1358: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Holt,
Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 1360: Mr. Tierney, Mr. Barrett, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Pallone, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Kind,
Mr. Olver, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 1366: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Lee, Mr. Ose, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Radanovich, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Horn, Mr.
Herger, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1367: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Pallone, and Mr.
Boucher.
H.R. 1371: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr.
Kucinich, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Waxman,
and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1375: Mr. Souder, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 1377: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Crenshaw, and Mrs. Wilson.
H.R. 1388: Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mrs. Clayton, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Berry, Mr. Baldacci, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Skelton, and Mr. Hilliard.
H.R. 1400: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Sabo,
Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Ross, Mr. Ackerman, and Mr.
Rodriguez.
H.R. 1416: Mr. Crowley.
H.R. 1431: Mr. Carson of Oklahoma, Mr. Kucinich, and Ms.
DeGette.
H.R. 1436: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Bonior,
Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Stark,
and Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 1438: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 1450: Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. Brown of Florida, and Mr.
Deutsch.
H.R. 1452: Ms. Lee, Mr. Stark, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr.
Gutierrez.
H.R. 1462: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 1464: Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Ford, Mr. Farr of California,
Mr. Nadler, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Thurman, and Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1467: Mr. Otter, Mr. Shows, and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 1468: Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H.R. 1470: Mr. Sabo, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1471: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 1488: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1490: Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Gallegly, and
Mr. Hutchinson.
H.R. 1496: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 1497: Mr. Sherman and Mr. Shows.
H.R. 1498: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 1501: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 1507: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Goode, and Mr. Everett.
H.R. 1522: Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McDermott,
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Rush, Mr. George Miller of California, Ms.
Lee, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Lantos,
and Mr. Filner.
H.J. Res. 13: Ms. Rivers.
H.J. Res. 20: Mr. Underwood.
H.J. Res. 36: Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Combest, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Costello, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Manzullo, Mr.
Largent, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, and Mr.
Baldacci.
H. Con. Res. 25: Mr. Weller, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Rothman.
H. Con. Res. 37: Mr. Bereuter.
H. Con. Res. 42: Mr. Tierney, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, and Mr.
Pastor.
H. Con. Res. 45: Mrs. Wilson, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Bonior, and Mr. Holt.
H. Con. Res. 58: Mr. Crowley, Mr. Bonior, and Mr.
Blagojevich.
H. Con. Res. 67: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
and Mr. King.
H. Con. Res. 68: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Shows, Mr. Bonior,
and Mr. Frank.
H. Con. Res. 72: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Rush.
H. Con. Res. 89: Mr. Akin, Mr. Graves, Mrs. Emerson, Mr.
Hulshof, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Otter, Ms. Dunn, and Mr.
DeFazio.
H. Con. Res. 95: Mr. Boehner, Mr. Petri, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr.
Roemer, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Keller,
Mr. DeMint, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey, Mr. Castle, and Mr. Isakson.
H. Con. Res. 97: Mr. Bonior, Mr. Baca, and Mr. Sherman.
H. Con. Res. 98: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Mr. McGovern, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Honda,
Ms. Brown of Florida, and Mr. Schiff.
H. Con. Res. 104: Mrs. Clayton, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kildee,
Mr. Faleomavaega, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Levin.
H. Res. 13: Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H. Res. 14: Mr. Langevin.
H. Res. 75: Mr. Manzullo.
H. Res. 87: Mr. Coyne, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Langevin, and
Mr. DeFazio.
H. Res. 97: Mr. Levin and Mr. Lantos.
H. Res. 112: Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H. Res. 117: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Schiff, Mr.
Conyers, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Pascrell.
____________________
DELETION OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H. R. 641: Mr. Osborne.
H. R. 1310: Mrs. Maloney of New York.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
H.R. 503
Offered by: Ms. Lofgren
(Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute)
Amendment No. 1: Strike all after the enacting clause and
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Motherhood Protection Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN--TERMINATING HER PREGNANCY.
(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the
person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions
of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an
interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting
in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy),
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation,
be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in
subsection (c) is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code,
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, but if
the interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title
18, United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years
or for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in
subsection (c)(4), the punishment shall be such punishment
(other than the death penalty) as the court martial may
direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242,
245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121,
1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512,
1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926,
and 928 of title 10, United States Code (articles 118,
119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
H.J. Res. 41
Offered By: Ms. Jackson-Lee
Amendment No. 1: Page 3, line 22, strike the close
quotation mark and the period that follows.
Page 3, after line 22, insert the following:
``Section 3. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative
measure reducing benefits payable from the Federal Old Age
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability
Trust Fund, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, the
Medicare Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund, or any
successor fund shall require for final adoption in each House
the concurrence of two thirds of the Members of that House
voting and present.''.
Page 2, lines 15 and 16, insert ``, other than section 3,''
after ``this article'' each place it appears.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
April 24, 2001
[[Page 6133]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
HONORING DR. DAVID K. WINTER
______
HON. LOIS CAPPS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Dr. David K.
Winter, President of Westmont College in Santa Barbara, who will soon
retire. Though his impending departure is a great loss, I would like to
congratulate David and thank him for 25 years of service and dedication
to Westmont College and its surrounding community.
David has a 25-year history of service to higher education. The list
of organizations within American higher education that have benefited
is a prestigious one. As president of Westmont, he has served on the
boards of the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities, the Council of Independent Colleges, and the Council for
Higher Education Accreditation, where he directed the board for three
years.
During his presidency, David has also provided leadership in
connecting Westmont College to the local community. He is very active
in local organizations, serving as the director of the Montecito
Association, the Montecito Rotary Club, the Channel City Club, the
Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, and St. Vincent's school. He has
also chaired the board of the Salvation Army Hospitality House, the
Santa Barbara Industry Education Council, and the Santa Barbara County
United Way Campaign, and served as vice chair of the Cottage Hospital
board of directors.
His honors are too long to list, but David has been named in a survey
of higher education officials and scholars who study the college
presidency, as one of the 100 most effective college leaders in the
United States. In addition, David has received the Santa Barbara News-
Press 1998 Lifetime Achievement Award, and in 1999 he was selected by
the John Templeton Foundation as one of the 50 college presidents who
have exercised leadership in character development. Most recently,
David was honored with the ``Distinguished Community Service Award'' by
the Anti-Defamation League and Santa Barbara B'nai B'rith Lodge.
Clearly, David is a man of distinction. But his faithful dedication
to education is perhaps his most important contribution. He aimed for
excellence in all things, and the college has reached beyond its grasp
to accomplish his vision. His plan was anchored in the premise that
learning should be a lifelong pursuit. Accordingly, David has led the
college under the theory that, in order to best serve its students, a
college should arm its students with the skills, knowledge, and
enthusiasm to continue learning long after they leave.
On a personal note, David has been a good friend and someone with
whom it has been a fine pleasure to work closely with over my years
both as a Member of Congress and resident of the community. I look
forward to continuing our friendship in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, for his lifetime of service to education and commitment
to community involvement, I recognize and salute Dr. David K. Winter
and thank him for all his efforts on behalf of the entire Central Coast
community. I am confident that David will remain a prominent figure in
the community as he begins to enter a new phase in his life. We all owe
him a tremendous debt of gratitude, and I wish him the best of luck in
all of his future endeavors.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF APRIL 15-21 AS LIONS CLUB WEEK
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Fairfax, Virginia Host
Lions Club, is observing its 50th anniversary this month. The Fairfax
chapter boasts a long list of distinguished members, including former
Congressman William L. Scott, now a State Senator. The Mayor of the
City of Fairfax has issued a proclamation proclaiming the week April 15
through 21 as Lions Club Week in the City. I ask unanimous consent that
this proclamation be printed in the Record.
Proclamation
Whereas, on April 21, 2001 the Fairfax Host Lions Club will
celebrate fifty years of community service to citizens and
organizations of Fairfax, Virginia; and
Whereas, the Fairfax Host Lions Club have given unselfishly
of their time and skills to answer requests affecting the
welfare of our community; and
Whereas, these Lions have helped mankind in Fairfax through
assisting the needy with food baskets at Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and Easter; furnishing eyeglasses, hearing aids
and exams; providing support to Little League, Scouting, Drug
Awareness and other youth programs; supporting the Lions Eye
Clinic at Fairfax Hospital; providing support to the Eye
Glass Recycling Program; providing support to selected
International Programs to include Leader Dogs for the sight
impaired and Hearing Dogs for the hearing impaired; and
supporting Diabetes and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Disease
(Lou Gehrig's Disease) Awareness Programs in this area.
Now, therefore, I, John Mason, Mayor of the City of
Fairfax, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of April 15-
21, 2001 as Lions Club Week in the City of Fairfax and
encourage all residents of the City to join in paying honor
to and supporting the Lions for their many activities
benefitting humanity in our City.
Signed,
John Mason,
Mayor.
Mr. Speaker, throughout our Country the Lions attempt to improve
their communities in numerous ways although special emphasis is placed
upon sight conservation. We in Virginia are proud of the Old Dominion
Eye Bank, which, with the assistance of dedicated physicians, enables
blind people to see once again. They also participate with other
Northern Virginia Lions in an Eye Glass Recycling Program, providing
glasses to numerous needy people overseas.
I certainly hope that the Fairfax Host Lions Club can continue
serving the Fairfax area in so many worthwhile ways, and would like to
add my congratulations to the club for the fine work they have done
over the years. I call upon all of my colleagues to congratulate them
on their fine achievements.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF LOS ANGELES, SANFORD WEINER AND ZEV
YAROSLAVSKY
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to Jewish
Family Service of Los Angeles and the ``FAMMY 2001'' honorees, Sanford
Weiner and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. Sandy Weiner
and Zev Yaroslavsky will be given the ``FAMMY 2001'' Award at this
year's JFS Dinner Gala on June 24, 2001.
JFS is one of Los Angeles' largest and oldest social service
agencies. It is an organization dedicated to preserving and
strengthening the lives of individuals and families. The staff helps
rehabilitate the homeless and provides care for senior citizens,
individuals with disabilities and people with AIDS. They also counsel
troubled families, help recent immigrants navigate complicated INS
procedures, and offer counseling and advocacy to battered women and
their children. JFS is an extremely important organization that makes a
real difference in the lives of many people.
We are very pleased that JFS has chosen to honor the past president
and former chair of the JFS Immigration and Resettlement, Save-A-Family
and Fiscal committees, Sandy Weiner, with the ``FAMMY 2001'' Award. His
extraordinary record of community service and his unyielding and
successful work to expand JFS have earned him this award. His work
within the Jewish community is legendary. He has been an active member
and support of many organizations including the Jewish Federation, the
American Jewish Congress, Americans for Peace Now and the Progressive
[[Page 6134]]
Jewish Alliance. We have known Sandy for more than 40 years, since we
were students, and are proud to call him a friend. His selflessness,
dedication, and accomplishments are inspirational.
Like Sandy Weiner, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky is also both an old
friend and a worthy recipient of a ``FAMMY 2001'' Award. Zev helped the
JFS gain recognition as the agency with expertise in helping older
people, and he worked to get the agency critical funding to expand
these services. When Zev was a City Councilman, he helped JFS obtain
the funding that started Home Secure, a program to provide free safety
modification for renters and homeowners with limited incomes--a program
that now serves over 2000 households in the Los Angeles area. Zev's
energy and passion are legendary. He is well respected by the citizens
of Los Angeles for his remarkable leadership and his responsiveness to
the needs of his constituents. We are proud to have him represent us on
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and we are privileged to
call him a friend.
Mr. Speaker, it is our distinct pleasure to ask our colleagues to
join with us in saluting Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, Sanford
Weiner, and Los Angeles County Supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, for their
commitment to improving the lives of many in our community.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO CAROLINE PAGE
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of a
woman who helped change the face of the Monterey Peninsula in
California. Caroline Page died last month at the age of 72, but the
legacy she created will carry her memory for a long time to come.
Caroline was the daughter of a consul and the wife of a member of the
military, so she was used to traveling and moving. When she moved to
Monterey in 1958, however, she knew she had found a place where she
could work wonders, and lived there until she died.
She joined the Monterey Peninsula chapter of the League of Women
Voters, and remained active in it until her death. Indeed, Mr. Speaker,
she chaired several committees and projects, and even served as the
chapter's president from 1978 to 1980. She was the driving force behind
the establishment of the League's housing committee, and helped
complete their two-year study on affordable housing on the Peninsula.
Her political interests did not end there. Caroline was active on
many political campaigns, beginning with George McGovern's presidential
campaign. She was also active on the campaigns for former Monterey
County Supervisor Karin Strasser Kauffman, Leon Panetta's first run for
this body, and my father, Fred Farr's California State Assembly
campaigns.
Caroline Page was also a tireless advocate and worker for education.
She did everything from volunteering in classrooms to serving on local
school boards and community college boards. Perhaps her greatest
inflence in education came when she was elected to the Monterey
Peninsula College (MPC) Board of Trustees in 1987, and subsequently re-
elected for two more terms. In this role she helped form the MPC
Foundation, the essential fund-raising arm of the college. With
donations from her and her husband and the rest of the community, the
Foundation helped build a language lab and complete renovation projects
throughout the campus, among other things.
Caroline was an inspiring woman who was universally adored. She was
honored by many throughout her life, including a special recognition by
the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce as their 1999 Public
Official of the Year. She was a devoted, dedicated and knowledgeable
public servant, and she will be sorely missed by her husband of almost
50 years, Charles; sons Stephen of Sonoma, California, David and Chris
of San Jose, California, and Jeff of Silver Spring, Maryland; her
brother, John Randolf of Burlington, Iowa; and six grandchildren.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF LET'S CELEBRATE, INC.
______
HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Let's Celebrate,
Inc., and to commend its mission, `helping people move from hunger to
wholeness.' Let's Celebrate, Let's Swing, the organization's annual
fundraiser, will be held on April 19, 2001. The event will provide an
opportunity for Let's Celebrate to express gratitude to its supporters,
while also paying tribute to community leaders.
Let's Celebrate, Inc., provides the type of assistance that allows
struggling community members to get through the hard times. Let's
Celebrate has developed a variety of programs to meet the needs of the
poor. These programs offer food assistance, career and money management
counseling, and job training:
The Emergency Food Network consists of 14 food pantries and 7 soup
kitchens;
The Housingplus Program provides budget/money management counseling
and career counseling;
The Senior Service Program provides home-delivered meals to seniors
and the disabled; and
The Jobpower Culinary Arts Training School is a twenty-week training
program that targets homeless, at-risk youth, and low-income
individuals to help them develop into well-rounded people who can gain
stable housing and permanent employment in the food service/hospitality
industry.
Every community across America depends on the generosity, compassion,
and hard work of dedicated men and women who spend their lives helping
others. The impact these individuals have on their communities is not
only beneficial to those who receive assistance, but is also beneficial
to every citizen of this great country.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Let's
Celebrate's important contributions to America.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE CITY OF PARMA'S 175TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of
Parma, Ohio, on its 175th birthday. For almost two hundred years, this
city has served as a model of social consciousness and diversity.
Becoming a home to many in the 1820s, the City of Parma quickly
evolved into an important pioneer territory. Originally having to ward
off such dangerous beasts as wolves and bears, the people came together
and formed a vibrant community of settlers. It was this sense of
community which helped to attract notable figures such as Dr.
Rockefeller, father of the famed John D. Rockefeller, to move to the
area. The City grew quickly as more people moved into the bustling
city. By 1940, 16,000 people were living in the City of Parma.
During World War II, the City of Parma sent its sons and daughters
off to defend our nation. When they came home, the City of Parma
witnessed rapid expansions as many young people chose to build houses
and start their families in this attractive city. This period of growth
attracted a diverse group of people to live together. In Parma, people
of all races, beliefs and religions live together in a respectful and
honorable environment. By 1970, over 100,000 people were living in this
wonderful city.
Today, the City of Parma stands as a testament to good will and
peace. My fellow colleagues, please stand with me in honoring the City
of Parma on its 175th birthday.
____________________
HONORING GENERAL JAMES C HALL
______
HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to honor the
remarkable achievements of Brigadier General James C Hall. He was born
on April 14, 1926, in a time when the day after his birthday, Tax Day,
was just another day of the month. This weekend, General Hall was the
guest of honor at the home of Governor Bill Owens celebrating his 75th
birthday and 30th anniversary with his gracious wife, Georgann.
Many of us have read adventure novels, or vicariously experienced
adventure in the movies or on television, but General Hall is a real
life hero. He enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1943 during World War
II and served as a B-17 Gunner at only 17 years of age. He lost one
brother at the ``Battle of the Bulge'' and another brother lost a leg.
He served on
[[Page 6135]]
Tinian Island in the Marianas where the Enola Gay was launched to bomb
Hiroshima ultimately leading to the end of the war. Yet, his service to
his country did not end there.
For a time he attempted to exercise his adventurous acumen on a gold
mine in Mexico and after, loosing a plane and risking his life
protecting the claim, walked away in search of other ventures. He
worked in Hollywood as a consultant for the military movie classic
``Twelve O'clock High.'' Around that same time, General Hall was
awarded a direct commission in the USAF in 1948 and distinguished
himself as an expert in jumping out of perfectly good airplanes. He was
the key developer of the parachuting program at the USAF Academy and
has participated in over 1,200 jumps.
There is an Internet web site in his honor where Kevin Coyne, the
publisher of the Ejection site writes: ``In late 1965, Jim Hall a
professional parachute safety instructor and Major in the Air Force
Reserve volunteered to act as the human guinea pig for the 0-0 seat
package.'' He is still the only human being ever to participate in such
a test. His comment after being launched by a rocket 400 feet into the
air into a small lake, ``I've been kicked in the ass harder than
that.'' Jim Hall is the epitome of the ``right stuff.''
Jim was a close friend of Steve Ritchie, the Air Force's first aerial
Ace of Viet Nam and is an active proponent of continued use of Buckley
field, General Hall was added, in 1985, to the Colorado Aviation Hall
of Fame. He has been active in Colorado politics helping to create the
Colorado Leadership Program. He worked to elect Jack Swigert to the 6th
Congressional district in 1982 and ultimately worked with the Colorado
State Legislature to place the very popular statue of Swigert, right
here in our nation's Capitol.
General Jim Hall is the Arapahoe County District II Captain to the
county Grand Old Party, he is the namesake of the Aurora Republican
Forum's ``General Jim Hall Award.'' He is the Military Advisor to Gov.
Owens and the Governor's Community Relations Advisor for the Asian
Community and I am honored to include him on my District Military
Academy Selection Board and District Military Veterans' Committee.
It is my honor, and pleasure to recognize this outstanding
constituent and distinguished American Service Man, here in the
Nation's Capitol.
____________________
HONORING JD BUTLER
______
HON. LOIS CAPPS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, nearly half a century ago, after bravely
serving his nation in the United States Navy, JD Butler became a
carpenter and joined the Carpenters Union. Today, I rise to announce to
my colleagues that JD has announced his retirement from the Carpenters
Union, and to commend him for his outstanding services to his fellow
carpenters and to our nation.
I have known JD for several years in his capacity as Executive
Secretary Treasurer of the Gold Coast District Council. In this
capacity, JD was a passionate and effective spokesman, not only for the
members of his union, but for working families across California and
our country. Since coming to Congress, I have been guided by JD's
wisdom and experience on a range of issues, from pension reform, to
school construction, to workplace safety, to preserving the protections
of Davis-Bacon. On these and other issues, JD is a tireless advocate
for the rights of American workers.
JD's success as a carpenter and labor leader is impressive. But more
significant to me is the man's character. JD is a warm and
compassionate man, a loving husband, father, and grandfather, and
someone who has given so much of himself to better his community.
Mr. Speaker, on May 5, people from across Central and Southern
California, Nevada, and Arizona will gather in Palm Springs to pay
tribute to JD's decades of service to the Carpenters Union. This is
certain to be an extraordinary affair honoring an extraordinary man. I
know my colleagues will join me in congratulating JD on his retirement
and applauding him for a career of achievement and accomplishments.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY
______
HON. RICHARD E. NEAL
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, the
Massachusetts Life Insurance Company will celebrate its 150th
anniversary--a milestone achieved by only twenty other Fortune 500
companies.
The Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company was founded by George
Rice in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1851. Today, the MassMutual
Financial Group continues to have its headquarters in Springfield, and
has grown into a global diversified financial services organization
with more than $213 billion in total assets under management.
The family of companies include Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company, plus its subsidiaries Oppenheimer Funds, David L. Babson,
Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers, MML Investors Services, MassMutual
International, MassMutual Asia, The MassMutual Trust Company, Antares
Capital Corporation, Persumma Financial, MML Bay State Life Insurance
Company and C.M. Life Insurance Company.
The Mass Mutual Financial Group serves more than 8 million clients
and offers a broad portfolio of financial products and services with
offices located across the United States, and international operations
in Hong Kong, Argentina, Bermuda, Chile, and Luxembourg.
Celebrating a 150th anniversary is an extraordinary accomplishment so
I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me in recognizing the
MassMutual Financial Group's anniversary and congratulating them for a
successful 150 years and anticipating another 150 years of continued
success.
____________________
HONORING MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 364 AND AUXILIARY POST 364
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to honor two outstanding groups in Northern Virgina, the
American Legion Post 364 and Auxiliary Post 364. Recently, four of
their most outstanding members were recognized, as well as the entire
Auxiliary Unit.
Jerry Howard, a member of Post 364, received the National Award for
Children and Youth Chairman of the Year for Region 2. Tirelessly
devoted to youth education initiatives, Jerry is most often recognized
for aiding children of veterans, even providing financial assistance to
those who are in need.
Marie Rhyne, also a member of Post 364, was recently appointed as a
member of the National Security Committee. This Committee not only
lends support to foreign relations, it also endorses ROTC, blood
donations, crime prevention, and junior law cadets.
Barbara Stevenson, a member of Auxiliary Unit 364 and Legislative
Chairman of the Unit, received the National Award for Outstanding Unit
Legislative Program, Southern Division. Members of the Legislative
Division make appearances at Congressional hearings and attend meetings
with Congressmen and women's groups to explain their interests.
Marcia Wheatley, also a member of Auxiliary Unit 364 and Junior
Activities Chairman, Department of Virginia, received the National
Award for Outstanding Department Junior Activities Program, Southern
Division. Marcia recognizes that helping our youth is key to the
success of the Unit and the community.
Finally, Auxiliary Unit 364 was recognized with the Dr. Kate Barrett
trophy for the most outstanding Unit in the Department of Virginia.
This prestigious award is well deserved and proves that this Unit gives
a great deal back to its community.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish the very best to the above
individuals and the entire American Legion Post 364 and Auxiliary Post
364. All of the above recognized people have certainly earned this
recognition, and I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in
applauding their remarkable achievements. Northern Virginia is better
off because of their efforts.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO WINI HURLBERT
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life
of a pillar of the community, Mrs. Jean Winifred Hurlbert. Wini
Hurlbert was an active member of many groups, organizations and
movements in Pacific Grove and the Monterey Peninsula community in my
district. Mrs. Hurlbert passed away recently, surrounded by friends and
family, at the age of 94.
[[Page 6136]]
Mrs. Hurlbert and her husband, Elgin ``Oxy'' Hurlbert, a retired Navy
captain, were lively members of the town of Pacific Grove for almost
their entire lives. Wini began her life on the peninsula when she was
17, working at a summer retreat center, and quickly became a fixture to
those who knew her. She moved to the area full time in the 1920's, and
began a teaching career at Pacific Grove Grammar School, and it was
there that she met her future husband. She was a dedicated teacher and
educator who was instrumental in starting the preschool program in
Pacific Grove, as well as being active in both the Girl Scouts and Boy
Scouts.
Along with her devotion to teaching, Wini was an inspiring
conservationist. She was an active member of the Monterey Peninsula
Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural
History Association, and was also a member of The Nature Conservancy,
American Birding Association, Hawk Mountain Society, the California
Native Plant Society, and the Wilderness Society. Her community
interests did not end there, as she was also active in the Friends of
the Pacific Grove Library, the Order of the Eastern Star, the Battle of
the Coral Sea Association, the Monterey Peninsula Community Concert
Association and the Monterey Peninsula Choral Society.
Mrs. Hurlbert was a warm and gracious person who touched so many
lives throughout the 20th Century. Her presence will not soon be
forgotten, and she is missed by everyone who knew her, especially her
son, Jerry Hurlbert of Weaverville, California; her daughter, Jean
Jorgensen of Jackson, Wyoming; eight grandchildren; ten great-
grandchildren; and one great-great-grandson.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SYBIL AND MANNON KAPLAN
______
HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my fellow
Adat Ari El congregant's Sybil and Mannon Kaplan. On Sunday evening,
June 3, 2001, Adat Ari El--the first Conservative synagogue in the San
Fernando Valley--will celebrate the Kaplan's longstanding dedication
and service to our temple and community.
The Kaplans have been members of Adat Ari El for more than 35 years
and their contributions are legion. They have selflessly involved
themselves in a variety of causes. Sybil is a devoted former L.A.
Unified School District teacher and community activist. She has served
on both the Temple and Sisterhood Board of Directors and is a founding
member and past President of the Associates of the Jewish Home for the
Aging. She also helped establish the San Fernando Valley Region of the
Jewish National Fund and served as President and Chairman of the Board.
Manny, while acting as the managing partner for the last 24 years of
the accounting firm of Miller, Kaplan, Arase & Co. LLP, has also found
time to devote himself to community service. He currently serves as the
Chairman of the Adat Ari El Endowment Fund and he has previously served
in many other capacities within Adat Ari El, including the Presidency.
He is also the current Chairman of the San Fernando Valley Region of
the Jewish National Fund and President of the Valley College Patron
Association. He has held many other positions and has served on the
Board of Directors of such important organizations as the United Jewish
Fund and the University of Judaism. Manny also was the President of
Camp Ramah.
I am honored to know the Kaplans personally. I have great respect and
admiration for their accomplishments, their integrity, and their civic
spirit. It is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me
in saluting Sybil and Mannon Kaplan for everything they've done and
continue to do.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE 20TH YEAR CELEBRATION OF THE FIRST HISPANIC COUNCIL
MEMBER ELECTED IN HUDSON COUNTY
______
HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 20th Year
Celebration of the First Hispanic Council Member Elected in Hudson
County, New Jersey. The Hispanic Pioneers Civic Association, Inc., will
host the celebration on Friday, April 20, 2001.
The Hispanic Pioneers Civic Association, Inc., (HPCA) was formed to
promote and honor Hispanic leaders and non-Hispanics who have made
significant contributions to the progress of the Hispanic community
during the past twenty years. Whether in the field of education,
politics, or community development, HPCA acknowledges those who have
made a real difference.
And during the past twenty years, in New Jersey and elsewhere, many
Hispanics have won elective office. However, the number of Hispanics in
elective office does not proportionally reflect the number of Hispanics
in America. Nevertheless, we are making great progress, and Hispanic
representation will soon reflect our community's growth and our years
of hard work.
In my home district, Hispanics have achieved great success in many
fields, and politics is certainly no exception. I am an example of that
success; and I could not have done it without the support of the
Hispanic community. There have been other success stories that
demonstrate how far we have come as a community. The following
individuals deserve credit for helping to lay the foundation for
Hispanic political and civic involvement in America, which they
accomplished through hard work and dedication: Benjamin Lopez; Nydia
Davila-Colon; Efrain Rosario; George O. Aviles; Jaime Vazquez; Mariano
Vega, Jr.; Fernando Colon, Jr.; Jose O. Arango; and Edwin Duroy.
The 20th Year Celebration presents a wonderful opportunity for the
Hispanic community to reflect on the important contributions that
Hispanics have made to American society.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the 20th Year
Celebration of the First Hispanic Council Member Elected In Hudson
County.
____________________
IN HONOR OF SAINT ELIAS MELKITE CATHOLIC CHURCH
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saint Elias Melkite
Catholic Church. This year, Saint Elias celebrates its centennial
anniversary.
For the past one hundred years, Saint Elias has served as an
important part of the Northeast Ohio community. A place where people of
all faiths can come together to pray for peace in the Middle East,
Saint Elias has effectively ministered to a diverse neighborhood. In
1997, the Catholic Church formally presented Saint Elias with the award
for the Promotion of Catholic Unity and Inter-Religious Dialogue. The
award recognized Saint Elias's years of dedication to ecumenicalism.
The good nature of Saint Elias has not been limited to the
neighborhood which houses the parish. Starting last year, the parish
has sponsored children in Lebanon by helping to provide needed medical
supplies and clothing. The goodwill and love of the people of Saint
Elias has been demonstrated by these acts of sharing and concern.
Saint Elias Church has always stayed true to its Melkite roots.
Always stressing fellowship and service, Saint Elias has assumed
important roles in its neighborhood. Most recently, Saint Elias created
its first Mens Club, which has shown a deep dedication to the promotion
of spiritual and material projects. They have organized countless
benefits, and have raised funds for scholarships, provided relief to
the poor and sponsored religious activities. The Men's Club has become
a fixture in the neighborhood, bring people together to help one
another.
My fellow colleagues, please join me in honoring Saint Elias Melkite
Catholic Church as they celebrate their one hundredth birthday.
____________________
THE HEART OF COLUMBINE DAY
______
HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to give honor to efforts by
Governor Bill Owens and the Jefferson County Board of Education in
declaring April 20th ``The Heart of Columbine Day,'' in support of the
Heart of Columbine organization.
Last week, the Littleton community and everyone across our state of
Colorado came together to quietly mark the second anniversary of the
shootings at Columbine High School.
In January, in remembrance of this terrible tragedy, the Heart of
Columbine organization was created by Gerda Weissman Klein and
[[Page 6137]]
students and staff members of Columbine to encourage community
involvement. The organization is actively recruiting other schools
across the country to follow their lead and, already, schools in
Illinois and Arizona have started their own programs.
This year, Columbine chose to focus its efforts on hunger prevention,
has worked in soup kitckens, sponsored a child in the Philippines and
collected more than 7,200 cans of food. Heart of Columbine also hosted
a community day in the school's parking lot to involve the community in
their project.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring this extremely
outstanding organization, which has done such a tremendous job of
turning tragedy into triumph.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING CAREER OF ROGER E. FARRELL, TEACHER, THOMAS
W. BURGESS SCHOOL, HAMPDEN, MASSACHUSETTS
______
HON. RICHARD E. NEAL
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to hereby
recognize the outstanding career of one of Hampden, Massachusetts'
finest educators, Roger E. Farrell. Mr. Farrell has taught social
studies at the Thomas W. Burgess in Hampden for thirty-four years.
During that span he has instilled in Hampden's young people an
appreciation of our government and of the many facets of our world.
Also, he has done exceptional work in organizing award programs,
student videos, and educational trips to New York and to our nation's
capital. Mr. Farrell and his classes have always been welcome visitors
to my office.
Even more important than this Mr. Speaker, is the fact that Mr.
Farrell has significantly contributed to the molding of fine character
of those he has taught over the years. The upstanding character
displayed by his students on their yearly visits to Washington serves
as testament of this.
Mr. Speaker, the Thomas W. Burgess School, the entire Hampden
community, and myself are extremely grateful of the dedicated service
that Mr. Farrell has provided his students. I congratulate him on his
retirement and wish he and his wife Barbara the best of luck in all
their endeavors.
____________________
HONORING WILLIAM L. GRAY
______
HON. LOIS CAPPS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to a
good friend, close advisor, and leader of the Santa Barbara community,
Mr. William L. Gray. After twenty-eight years of service, Bill recently
retired from Pacific Bell.
Bill started his career at Pacific Bell in 1972 as a customer service
representative. His commitment to serving the customers of his company
and the members of his community has been Bill's trademark ever since.
I have come to know Bill professionally over the past several years
in his capacity as Director of Pacific Bell's External Affairs for
Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. Of course, Bill was an effective
advocate for the positions of his company on legislation pending in
Congress. But more important, Bill was a tireless proponent of the
limitless potential that communications technology has to benefit our
society. I learned a tremendous amount from Bill about the range of
technology choices consumers can and should expect in the years ahead.
His counsel was particularly helpful to me in my role as a member of
the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, there are few institutions in Santa Barbara County that
have not benefited from Bill Gray's substantial and generous community
activism. He served on the Board of Directors of the Goleta Valley and
Santa Barbara Region Chambers of Commerce, the Kiwanis club, the Santa
Barbara Chamber Orchestra, Santa Barbara Partners in Education, Santa
Barbara Family YMCA, the Red Cross, and the United Way. He has also
contributed significantly to business and civic groups in Santa Maria,
Lompoc, Carpinteria, and Solvang.
Although Bill may have retired from his job, I know that he and his
wife Cindy will not retire from their commitment to improving the
quality of life in our community. I will miss working directly with
Bill on issues involving Pacific Bell, but I know that I will continue
to witness the wonderful contributions he makes to Santa Barbara
County. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in congratulating Bill
Gray on his lifetime of accomplishments and achievement.
____________________
HONORING ELIZABETH HARTWELL EARTH DAY
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to honor a friend of Northern Virginia, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hartwell, who dedicated her life to protecting the environment. I want
to recognize her life and all of her contributions to the Eleventh
District of Virginia.
Mrs. Hartwell began her quest to protect the environment in 1966,
when she learned of plans to rezone part of Northern Virginia, Mason
Neck, a wildlife habitat. She made modest films of the wildlife that
thrived there and showed it to civic organizations around the region.
She even gave tours by boat along Mason Neck's waterways. She formed a
committee and, with the backing of local officials, saved 5,000 acres
of Mason Neck for use as park land.
She served on many boards to help care for the environment. She was a
member and vice chairman of the Northern Virginia Regional Park
Authority. Mrs. Hartwell also served as secretary and vice president of
the Conservation Council of Virginia and chairman of the Citizen's
Council for a Clean Potomac. Some of her time was spent with the
Audubon Naturalist Society.
Mrs. Hartwell was the organizer of ``Friends of Mason Neck.'' Due to
her efforts, the 2,277-acre Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge was
formed, making it the first area established for the protection of bald
eagles. Also created were the 1,804-acre Mason Neck State Park and the
1,003-acre Pohick Regional Park.
During his term, former Governor Linwood Holton appointed her to the
Virginia Board of Agriculture. Later she was appointed to the board of
Fairfax County Wetlands for seven years. Former Governors Charles Robb
and Gerald Baliles both appointed Mrs. Hartwell to the Northern
Virginia Potomac River Basin Committee.
Her efforts to protect the environment were rewarded with dozens of
honors and awards. In 1976, Mrs. Hartwell was named the Virginia
Wildlife Federation Conservationist of the Year. In 1990, she won the
Fairfax County Park Authority's Elly Doyle Park Service Award.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish the very best to Mason Neck State
Park as they honor Mrs. Elizabeth Hartwell on April 21, 2001 in
Fairfax, Virginia. She dedicated her life to nature and helping the
environment and I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in
celebrating her remarkable life. Because of her efforts, Northern
Virginia today is an even better place to live, work, and raise a
family.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS INTEREST CHECKING ACT OF 2001
______
speech of
HON. JUDY BIGGERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 974, ``the Small
Business Interest Checking Act of 2001.'' This bill will repeal the
prohibition against banks paying interest on checking accounts.
When this bill was considered in the Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions, I expressed my concern that this legislation could be
interpreted in a way that would effectively eliminate the financial
benefits and checking services that large depositors now receive from
banks in lieu of interest. These services are now provided in
accordance with substantial interpretive guidance that has been issued
by the Federal Reserve under Regulation Q. Current law states that the
provision or the receipt of such services and benefits does not
constitute interest.
I am pleased that Chairman Oxley agreed to modify the bill by
including a new section and accompanying report language. These
provisions clarify that the current provision of services by banks in
accordance with Regulation Q will be continued. This legislation will
not alter the legal definition of interest for real estate closing
escrow transactions and provides that current Regulation Q Federal
regulatory interpretations regarding the definition of interest on
deposits will continue to stand.
[[Page 6138]]
Title companies and agents currently receive bank services that
defray the overall cost of maintaining real estate settlement escrows.
These services subsidize settlement service operations, ultimately
lowering the cost of closing and settlement services to the public. As
a highly developed financial system, Federal banking law and
regulations have consistently operated to facilitate the smooth and
efficient flow of real estate transactions and promoted American
homeownership.
I am grateful that the Committee included a clear statement of
congressional intent with respect to this issue in relationship to the
proposed changes in the bill and I fully support H.R. 974.
____________________
HONORING THE EIGHTH GRADE CLASS OF GATES-CHILI MIDDLE SCHOOL
______
HON. THOMAS M. REYNOLDS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the eighth grade
class of Gates-Chili Middle School, who arrived in Washington today.
These outstanding students have come to our nation's Capitol not only
to experience first-hand our government and history, but to show their
respect and gratitude to America's World War II veterans. While here,
they will be presenting a donation to the American Legion to help build
the World War II Memorial.
More than two generations removed from the Second World War, these
young men and women dedicated their time and their energy to raise
$1,000 for the memorial fund. Through a mass production project, the
Team 8C Coolaids (as they called themselves), produced CD racks that
were sold in school and throughout the community, with the help of the
Parent-Teachers Organization.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of these students for their hard
work, and for their commitment to ensuring that the sacrifices endured,
and the triumph ensured by our nation's World War II veterans will
forever be remembered. I ask that this entire Congress join me in
saluting the hard work, service and devoting of the eighth grade class
at Gates-Chili Middle School.
____________________
SUMMARY OF LOFGREN-CONYERS AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO
H.R. 503
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren-Conyers Amendment, the
``Motherhood Protection Act of 2001,'' is an overall substitute to the
committee bill, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001,'' H.R.
503, and creates a crime for any violent or assaultive conduct against
a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy and makes
any interruption punishable by a fine and imprisonment up to twenty
years but, if the pregnancy is terminated, punishable by a fine and
imprisonment up to life.
Amendment to H.R. 503, as Reported Offered by Ms. Lofgren of California
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Motherhood Protection Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN--TERMINATING HER PREGNANCY.
(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the
person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions
of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an
interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting
in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy),
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation,
be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in
subsection (c) is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code,
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, but if
the interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title
18, United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years
or for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in
subsection (c)(4), the punishment shall be such punishment
(other than the death penalty) as the court martial may
direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242,
245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121,
1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512,
1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926,
and 928 of title 10, United States Code (articles 118,
119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CAPE HENLOPEN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE WE
THE PEOPLE NATIONAL FINALS
______
HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE
of delaware
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on April 21-23, 2001 more than 1200 students
from across the United States will be in Washington, D.C. to compete in
the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the
Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Cape
Henlopen High School from Lewes will represent the state of Delaware in
this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to
reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a
deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and
values of our constitutional democracy.
I would like to recognize the participating students from Cape
Henlopen High School: Matt Beebe, Caroline Boving, Kristin Cannatelli,
Cassandra Class, Khara Conlon, Lauren Cooper, Laura Dillon, Megan Kee,
Hillary Lord, Alieda Lynch, Chrissy Mulligan, Andrew Olenderski, Neeru
Peri, Joe Pritchett, Heather Sweard, Sarah Sprague, Megan Sterling,
Charli Tabler, and Erin Williams.
I would also like to recognize their teacher, Jerry Peden, who
deserves much of the credit for the success of the class.
The class from Cape Henlopen High School is currently conducting
research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in
Washington, D.C. I wish them, and Mr. Peden, the very best of luck;
they are all fine representatives of the First State.
____________________
THE FREEDOM FROM UNFAIR ENERGY LEVY ACT (FUEL)
______
HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am re-introducing
legislation, the Freedom from Unfair Energy Levy Act or ``FUEL Act,''
to alleviate the impact of current high fuel prices. My legislation
would place a six-month moratorium on federal motor fuel excise taxes,
including the 18.3 cent per gallon tax consumers pay for gasoline and
the 24.3 cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel, and eliminate permanently
the 4.3 cent per gallon tax increase approved in 1993.
Last year, when I first introduced the FUEL Act, I warned of the
threat that high energy prices posed to our economy. As was illustrated
clearly in the 1970s and early 1990s, fuel price hikes can cause
widespread damage to economic well being. Unfortunately, high energy
costs have continued to plague the U.S. since that warning and our
economy is beginning to suffer the consequences. Some have argued that
money from fuel taxes is more useful in Washington than in Americans'
pockets, helping motorists afford the high price of gasoline. In
reality, the economic damage caused by high fuel prices far outweighs
any impact on federal spending that a six-month moratorium could cause.
Congress should act now to mitigate the economic damage caused by steep
energy costs.
The current high gasoline prices across the country are a
continuation of the energy problems that began during the Clinton
administration. In recent years, domestic energy production has fallen
to its lowest level since before World War II. The failure to increase
domestic production has made the U.S. increasingly vulnerable to the
whims of OPEC nations, who recently slashed their oil production in
order to increase their profitability. Compounding the problem is the
increase in the gasoline tax that was enacted in 1993. That year, when
[[Page 6139]]
fuel prices were low, Democrats in Congress, President Clinton, and a
tie-breaking vote by Vice President Gore combined to increase federal
fuel taxes. The FUEL Act would reverse that increase and represents a
sound first step in the development of a comprehensive, long-term
policy to lower energy costs.
Besides addressing long-term concerns, my legislation provides
immediate assistance to the problem of high fuel costs. By halting the
collection of federal fuel taxes for six months, consumers will see an
immediate dip of nearly 20 cents in the cost of gasoline at the pump.
This six month moratorium will help to keep prices down over the summer
months which often see steep fuel cost increases. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation to fight rising energy prices.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LT. COLONEL HUGH PENTLAND DUNN
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lt. Colonel Hugh
Pentland Dunn's 100th Birthday. Mr. Dunn was born in New York City on
April 24, 1901. He is a veteran of three wars: World War I, World War
II, and the Korean War.
Hugh Dunn lives in Santa Rosa, CA, with his wife Patricia. He has a
humor and brightness that shines with every story he tells. People who
visit Hugh Dunn find him refreshing and entering to be around. We are
all enriched by his first-hand memories of the early 1900's.
At age 17, he lied about his age to join the Canadian Army's
Expeditionary Force and entered World War I. After the war, he attended
college at Columbia University in New York City and joined the ROTC as
an officer. Eventually he transferred to City College because of
protests at Columbia against the ROTC. Mr. Dunn served in World War II
in the Korean conflict, ending his career in Germany in the Army of
Occupation.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent such a dedicated and
knowledgeable veteran. Please join me in celebrating his 100th
birthday.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
______
HON. ASA HUTCHINSON
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the great
contributions which Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) make to
our communities. SBDCs have provided counseling and training programs
to small businesses and potential entrepreneurs for over 20 years.
SBDCs have a large return on investment as they create jobs, increase
business revenue and generated tax revenue.
In my home State of Arkansas, an economic impact study conducted in
2000 revealed that more than $44 million in increased sales and more
than $3.5 million in tax revenues were generated as a result of
services provided by the Arkansas Small Business Development Center
(ASBDC). Last year, clients served by the ASBDC created 541 new jobs!
Those are staggering numbers which show that this is a program which
deserves full funding.
Small businesses account for 87 percent of all businesses in
Arkansas. There are over 45,000 businesses with 20 employees or fewer.
These numbers demonstrate the great need for the support services
provided by the SBDCs. Businesses turn to the SBDCs for counseling,
training, assistance with loan applications, and more. Simply put,
SBDCs are vital to the health of the small business community.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support funding of Small
Business Development Centers at the highest level possible. In
addition, I would like to insert an excerpt from an article
``Successful Business Strategies'' written by USA Today columnist
Rhonda Abrams as she speaks to the merits of this program.
Successful Business Strategies
(By Rhonda M. Abrams)
One of the best, least-known services the government helps
fund--and I emphasize the word ``help,'' since the federal
government only provides matching funds--is a national
network of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs). There
are over 1,000 SBDCs, located primarily at community colleges
or in Main Street storefronts across the country.
They've provided one-on-one counseling and training
programs--free or at very low cost--to small businesses and
start-up entrepreneurs for over 20 years. If you haven't
heard of them, it's because they don't spend money
advertising. They just do their job.
SBDCs serve over 600,000 small businesses a year in face-
to-face counseling sessions, and another 750,000 businesses
turn to them for information, resources, and call-in
assistance. They provide business plan guidance, computer
training, and help small companies regroup rather than fold
up when an industry is phased out in a region.
The result is a remarkable track record. SBDC clients
generated 67,800 new jobs in 1998. Small businesses helped by
SBDCs have a higher survival rate than other small companies.
And while the entire SBDC network received a paltry $83
million in 2000, SBDC clients generated additional tax
revenues of over $468 million. This is one federal program
that actually makes money for the government!
____________________
CELEBRATION OF THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AIR FORCE SERGEANTS
ASSOCIATION
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
enlisted men and women of the United States Air Force, to whom
``Service Before Self'' is more than a slogan, it is an ingrained value
that has become the standard by which they live. As I have worked with
the Air Force Sergeants Association, I have recognized that same value
in their enduring contributions and dedicated efforts to representing
their members. Over the past forty years, the Air Force Sergeants
Association has become known as ``the voice of the Air Force enlisted
corps'' by tenaciously representing those whom they serve. The Air
Force Sergeants Association plays a key role in keeping Members of
Congress informed of the issues affecting Air Force enlisted members
and their families, whether those members are active duty, Air Force
component or retiree personnel. These issues range from pay and
benefits, to education, to housing, to military health care. Not only
does AFSA keep the Members of Congress informed, it keeps its members
up-to-date regarding where Congress stands on the critical quality of
life issues that so drastically impact upon their welfare.
The efforts of the enlisted men and women contribute immeasurably to
the success of our United States Air Force. AFSA's dedicated efforts to
those men and women have made this association a great success. The Air
Force Sergeants Association's 40th Anniversary will occur on May 3rd.
I am proud to recognize their efforts and contributions to the Air
Force enlisted corps and to the defense of our great nation. I
congratulate them on reaching this important milestone.
____________________
MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO'S AMERICAN RADIOWORKS WINS TOP NATIONAL
JOURNALISM AWARD
______
HON. BILL LUTHER
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, Minnesota Public Radio's American RadioWorks
has won the 2001 Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Gold Baton Award
for its hour-long documentary entitled ``Massacre at Cuska: Anatomy of
a War Crime.'' The award is considered to be the nation's most
prestigious in broadcast journalism.
``Massacre at Cuska'' investigated the events surrounding the May 14,
1999 attack by Serbian death squads on an ethnic Albanian village
called Cuska (pronounced CHOOSH-kuh) that, within a matter of hours,
left forty-one unarmed civilians dead. The program presented, for the
first time, detailed testimony from Serbian police, army and militia
members alleging that Slobodan Milosevic's senior generals masterminded
a campaign of murder and deportations against Kosovar Albanians. Six of
the Serbs interviewed by American RadioWorks took part in the Cuska
attack, including one man who admitted to executing a dozen unarmed
Albanian men.
The Alfred I. duPont-Columbia awards have spotlighted the nation's
best in broadcast journalism since 1942. Past Gold Baton winners have
included Bill Moyers and Public Affairs Television in 2000 for ``Facing
the Truth'' on PBS, and 1999 winner NOVA, produced at
[[Page 6140]]
WGBH-TV, Boston, for five programs (``Everest: The Death Zone,'' ``The
Brain Eater,'' ``Supersonic Spies,'' ``China's Mysterious Mummies,''
and ``Coma'') and for consistently outstanding science reporting.
Batons are inscribed with the late Edward R. Murrow's famous
observation on television: ``This instrument can teach, it can
illuminate; yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the
extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it
is merely wires and lights in a box.''
In presenting the 2001 Gold Baton to American RadioWorks Producers,
Stephen Smith and Michael Montgomery, Columbia University's President
George Rupp said, ``It is a measure of the times we live through that
each year, at least one of these winning programs is about man's
inhumanity to man. The duPont jury applauds this radio documentary for
telling us about ghastly events in a now forgotten part of the world.''
Jurors, who reviewed over 600 submissions to choose just one Gold Baton
recipient, commented, ``This program reaffirms the effectiveness of
radio in presenting complicated issues in a compelling way.''
``Massacre at Cuska'' had already received well-deserved national
recognition when, in December 2000, it was named as a finalist for the
2000 International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) Award
for Outstanding International Investigative Reporting and as a finalist
in the category Enterprise Journalism: In Collaboration for the Online
Journalism Awards (OJAs) presented by the Online News Association and
Columbia University. That said, an award of the stature of the Alfred
I. duPont-Columbia University Gold Baton bestowed upon such a small,
public radio broadcasting entity like American RadioWorks is
unprecedented.
``Massacre at Cuska'' originally aired in this country in February
2000 on public radio stations nationwide, and later that year, a
Serbian language version was broadcast in Yugoslavia on the independent
B92 radio network. According to co-producer, Michael Montgomery,
``Serbs had never heard a program so detailed and so blunt about the
ethnic killings in Kosovo. As part of Serbia's new commitment to
democracy, it's important that Serbs have access to independent
accounts of the Kosovo violence. We hope the program will foster a
public discussion in Serbia about war, accountability and
reconciliation.''
American RadioWorks is public radio's largest documentary production
unit. It represents a collaboration that involves Minnesota Public
Radio, National Public Radio and public radio stations across the
country. Through investigative journalism, American RadioWorks is based
in Minnesota, but its work, like mine, touches more than just
Minnesotans. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate American RadioWorks on their
notable achievement as the 2001 recipient of the Alfred I. duPont-
Columbia Gold Baton Award for overall excellence in broadcast
journalism.
____________________
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
______
HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Oliver Wendell Holmes once said ``Pretty
much all the honest truth telling in the world is done by children.'' I
believe we here in Congress could certainly learn something about
energy, the environment, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from a
young girl named Sophie Brown of Anchorage, Alaska, the subject of the
following thoughtful and thought-provoking ``Letter to the Editor''
from her mother, published in the Anchorage Daily News on April 5,
2001:
Children Put Earth Before Parents' SUVs
(By Barbara Brown)
I pulled the car into the driveway, walked toward the door
of the house, and Sophie threw open the storm door and
shouted, ``How do you feel about drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge?''
``Hold on,'' I said, ``let me pull the car into the
garage.''
``But this is important,'' she insisted. ``Yes or no?''
Just another pleasant ``welcome home'' in the Wiepking-
Brown household.
One evening, Tim was talking about something over the
dinner table, and I must have become distracted because next
thing I knew, he was discussing scientists and cannibalism in
Papua New Guinea.
``Cannibalism?'' I said, really confused. ``What are you
talking about?''
Sophie piped up: ``It's the slow, deadly spread of mad cow
disease.''
By this point, I was really feeling disconnected. ``What
slow, deadly spread of mad cow disease?'' I asked. And Sophie
pointed to Newsweek magazine. ``The Slow, Deadly Spread of
Mad Cow Disease'' was right there, on the cover.
``You read the article?'' Tim asked, incredulous.
``Yes,'' Sophie said. ``We're discussing mad cow disease in
school.''
Tim loves this about Sophie. He loves discussing current
events. In school, he'd had a lot of trouble with reading
until they introduced newspapers in his classroom. He went
from nonreader to the boy everyone wanted on the current-
events team.
But back to ANWR. In Sophie's class, all the kids were
opposed to drilling except one boy who thought the money
might help education in the affected communities. I wondered
if they'd seen pictures of cute little caribou. I asked,
``Was it because of the caribou?''
``Some,'' Sophie said, ``but we know about the differences
of opinion between the groups of people there; we know about
how much oil they might find there. Mostly, it's because of
the Earth, the wilderness.''
One friend of mine said her daughter's class is ready to
die on its swords to defend the refuge. Ask the children, and
they want to keep it safe from drilling. Is it because
they're so young, so naive, so limited in understanding? Is
it because they're not paying the bills? Talk to them--
they're well-versed in the facts. It's just the way they
assign priorities: Kids put the Earth into the equation.
Tim went looking for a car recently and was considering a
sport utility. In horror, Sophie shouted, ``No, not an SUV!
They are terribly wasteful of the Earth's resources!''
Don't ask me where she read that--probably the same places
you have. It's just that kids don't let it slide by, don't
let it fall away under considerations of image, size, power
and, oh yes, by the way, it isn't very fuel-efficient.
So she sees SUVs on the road and she asks, ``Are those
people selfish, or do they just not know better?'' She used
to ask the same thing about people she saw littering.
I hear on the radio that 75 percent of Americans are
worried about global warming, but the United States won't
agree to a treaty to try to control it. Our president says it
would be too hazardous for our economy.
Every day, everyone evaluates, decides what priority to
assign things and then makes up his or her mind. But for
older people, the Earth wasn't and isn't a thing to worry
about. It's just ``there,'' like adding zero to both sides of
an equation. Other things--costs, duration, employment
statistics, capitalization, demographics--those are all
factors to be considered. The Earth? It just keeps rotating
around the sun. You've seen one tree, you've seen them all.
Or, you see no trees, there's nothing there.
Find me a kid who doesn't know about recycling. Find me a
kid who doesn't know why he or she recycles, why it's
important. OK, maybe they are just little do-gooders, but
they're little do-gooders entirely different from the way
little kids used to be. While my mom told people to turn
their lights off for the war effort, these kids turn lights
off ``for the Earth.''
Once, many years ago, a summer roommate said to me, ``If
the U.S. uses most of the Earth's resources, then if
conditions are going to improve for the rest of the world, we
would have to end up using less, right?''
I thought so.
``Well,'' he decided, ``I don't want to use less of
anything. So I guess the rest of the world can't improve.''
I am eager to see the world these children make. Oh, I know
that some may grow up to think that recycling aluminum cans
is a pain in the neck or that they want as big a gas guzzler
as the next guy. All those ``other'' factors may outweigh
their desire for wilderness, for conservation, for clean air
and water.
But right now--bet on it--children are putting the Earth
first. Even if that changes--even if they put the Earth
second or third or fourth--we can be sure they'll never
forget about putting the Earth in the equation. How will they
feel if we don't leave them much Earth to worry about?
Barbara Brown lives and writes in Anchorage.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BEVERLY K. ABBOTT
______
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished
Californian, Beverly K. Abbott, on the occasion of her retirement from
the San Mateo County Mental Health Services Agency.
In January 1968 Beverly Abbott entered into public service as a
social worker. A dedicated champion of the mentally ill, she devoted
twelve years to Marin County's Division of Community Health, eight of
which were spent
[[Page 6141]]
as Director. Beverly Abbott revolutionized the Department during her
tenure, increasing the budget from $5,000,000 to $12,000,000.
In 1985, Beverly Abbott took the helm at the San Mateo County Mental
Health Services Agency. Under her stewardship, the Mental Health
Division has been transformed from a traditional, clinic-based mental
health facility to a dynamic organization with a broad array of
residential and rehabilitation options. Today the Agency offers a wide
selection of contact services, designed to involve families and clients
in the administration and evaluation of the service delivery system.
In 1994, the San Mateo Mental Health Division led the State of
California by implementing the first fully integrated mental health
service system for persons funded by Medi-Cal (MEDICAID).
Beverly Abbott has taken a leadership role in a number of prestigious
organizations, including the American College of Mental Health
Administration where she served as President-Elect and President from
1995 to 1999.
She has worked tirelessly to provide uncompromising assistance to all
residents of San Mateo County. Beverly Abbott's life of leadership is
instructive to us all. Her dedication to the ideals of democracy and
community service stand tall. It is fitting that she is being honored
upon the occasion of her retirement from the San Mateo County Mental
Health Services Agency, and I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join
me in honoring this great and good woman whom I am proud to call my
friend. We are a better county, a better country and a better people
because of her.
____________________
NATIONAL DEPRESSIVE AND MANIC-DEPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION
______
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached
testimony that was given by Lydia Lewis of the National Depressive and
Manic Depressive Association to the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education for the Record.
National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association, Chicago
(Statement on Fiscal Year 2002 Budget, National Institutes of Health
and National Institute of Mental Health--Submitted to the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, March 21, 2001)
Good afternoon. Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Lydia Lewis, and I
am the Executive Director of the National Depressive and
Manic-Depressive Association (National DMDA). We are pleased
to have this opportunity to testify on fiscal year 2002
funding for mental health research supported by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH).
National DMDA has been gratified to see the overall NIH
budget increase over the past three years, including last
year's nearly $2.5 billion increase, and we urge the
continued full funding of these research priorities in order
to maintain an active, progressive research agenda. We fully
support President Bush's 2002 budget request of a $2.8
billion increase above the 2001 funding level for NIH, to a
total of $23.1 billion, and we applaud the President's stated
initiative to double NIH's 1998 $13.6 billion funding level
by 2003.
With nearly 400 patient-run support groups in every major
metropolitan area, National DMDA is the nation's largest
patient-directed, illness-specific organization. We are
committed to advocating for research toward the elimination
of mood disorders; educating patients, professionals and the
public about the nature of depression and manic-depression as
treatable medical diseases; fostering self-help; eliminating
discrimination and stigma; and improving access to care. We
have a distinguished Scientific Advisory Board of nearly 65
leading researchers and clinicians in the field of mood
disorders which reviews all of our materials for medical and
scientific accuracy and provides critical and timely advice
on important research opportunities and treatment
breakthroughs. While I am here today to testify on behalf of
National DMDA, I know personally what it is like to battle
depression every day, to fight the urge to end my life. I
myself suffer from the disease. It's a dreadful way to live.
COMBATING THE STIGMA OF MENTAL ILLNESS
The facts are staggering. More than 20 million American
adults--10% of the U.S. population--suffer from unipolar or
major depression every year. An additional 2.3 million people
suffer from bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depression.
According to a study done in 2000 by the World Health
Organization, the World Bank, and the Harvard School of
Public Health, unipolar major depression is the leading cause
of disability in the world today. It also found that mental
health has long been misunderstood. In fact, mental illness
accounts for more than 15% of the burden of disease in
established market economies such as the United States. This
is more than the disease burden caused by all cancers
combined.
Women are more than twice as likely as men to experience
depression, and one out of every four American women will
experience a major depressive episode in her lifetime. Ten to
fifteen percent of women develop postpartum depression the
first year after birth--the most underdiagnosed obstetrical
complication in America. Among the many consequences of this
illness is the depressed new mother's inability to bond with
and nurture her child. Experts say these babies are at
increased risk of depression throughout life.
Coping with these devastating illnesses is a tragic,
exhausting and difficult way to live. Despite these facts,
stigmatizing mental illness is a common occurrence in the
United States. Labeling people with mental illness has been a
part of the national consciousness for far too long, and
continues to send the message that devaluing mental illness
is acceptable. An estimated 50 million Americans experience a
mental disorder in any given year, and only one-fourth of
them actually receive mental health and other services. Two
out of three people with mood disorders do not get proper
treatment because their symptoms are not recognized, and
misdiagnosed or, due to the stigma associated with mental
illness, are blamed on personal weakness. Far too often, the
fear of being judged or abandoned wins out over the need to
seek medical attention, and the person remains untreated.
Equally devastating is the stigma associated with the
research of mood disorders and other mental illnesses.
Research in behavioral science is as critical as that
undertaken for any other illness. Our understanding of the
brain is extremely limited and will remain so for decades
unless much greater financial support is provided.
Neuroscience research is also critically important to
understand the mechanisms in the brain that lead to these
illnesses. When we begin to understand these, we will be able
to develop more effective and rational ways to treat, and
hopefully cure, mental illness.
Increased public awareness and understanding of mood
disorders will contribute significantly to improved diagnosis
and treatment rates for these illnesses. Progress is slowly
being made, and we encourage the Subcommittee to continue to
fully fund programs that address the stigma and isolation
associated with mental illness. We must, as NIMH Director Dr.
Steven Hyman has said, sound the alarm that we are in the
midst of a public health crisis--that our glaring
misperceptions about and undertreatment of mental illness,
especially for children and minority populations, represents
nothing less than a national health emergency.
PROGRESS IN RESEARCH AND DIAGNOSIS
Mood disorders and other mental illnesses kill people every
day. Depression is the leading cause of suicide in the United
States. One in every five bipolar sufferers takes his or her
own life, and the Centers for Disease Control report that
suicide is the third-leading cause of death among 15 to 24
year old Americans. For every two homicides committed in the
United States, there are three suicides.
We know that science destigmatizes, and as more people come
to understand that mood disorders are treatable medical
illnesses, we can make significant reductions in both their
human and economic costs. The Surgeon General released a
groundbreaking report on mental illness, an important first
step in this process. The study concluded that these diseases
are real, treatable, and affect the most vital organ in the
body--the brain. Research supported by NIMH has lead to new
and more effective medications for both depression and manic
depression. We have a much better understanding of these
illnesses, and are learning more about their impact on
cardiovascular disease and stroke.
The Surgeon General's 1999 report was the first ever, from
that office, on mental illness. While this is a shameful
statistic--by comparison, there have been 23 Surgeon
General's reports on tobacco since 1964--National DMDA is
nevertheless encouraged by this development, and we hope to
take advantage of this turning tide. Finally, there is hope
that these disorders will start to be seen by Americans for
what they are--real diseases. But we urgently need to
increase funding for NIMH and other research institutions to
ensure that any forward momentum is not lost.
CLINICAL RESEARCH
National DMDA plays an important role in several large
NIMH-sponsored clinical trials. Our consumer representatives
are members of oversight committees for trials studying the
effectiveness of treatments for bipolar disorder, the study
of treatment of adolescents with depression, and the study of
treatment of individuals with depression who do not benefit
from standard initial treatments. National DMDA participates
in the oversight of these trials to ensure that the
[[Page 6142]]
first priority of all clinical trials is the safety of the
patient. One of our primary objectives is to limit the number
of people exposed to placebo and limit the duration of their
exposure without compromising scientific validity.
MOOD DISORDERS IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
The issue of mood disorders in children and adolescents is
of particular concern to National DMDA, and we support the
aggressive research being done by NIMH in this area. Nearly
2.5 percent of children and 8.3 percent of adolescents suffer
from clinical depression. There has, however, been virtually
no research to date on bipolar disorders in children, despite
evidence that families wait an average of 10 years before
receiving the proper diagnosis after seeking help. We know
that up to 90 percent of bipolar disorders start before age
20, meaning more high school dropouts, more illegal drug and
alcohol use, higher teen pregnancy rates, more teen violence
and more adolescent suicides. The costs of waiting for proper
treatment do not just affect the individual sufferer, but
society as a whole.
We fully support NIMH plans to further expand clinical
trials of treatments for mental illnesses, including the
exploration of depression in young children. We urge a
significant increase in funding for research of mood
disorders in children and adolescents with special emphasis
on the efficacy and safety of current treatments, the
epidemiology of these illnesses and improved diagnostic
tools.
We are pleased that NIMH played a lead role in the Surgeon
General's report on youth violence. With further research
into the relationship between mental disorders and violence,
we are hopeful that tragedies like the recent school
shootings in California and across the country can be
prevented in the future. Many of the perpetrators of these
shootings exhibited symptoms of mental illness, and further
research into the connection between behavior problems and
anxiety disorders, depression, and suicidal ideation is
critical. National DMDA is also pleased with the coordination
between NIMH and other federal agencies, such as the Centers
for Disease Control and the departments of education and
justice, and continued information sharing about the
relationship between mental illnesses and violence.
BIPOLAR (MANIC-DEPRESSION) DISORDER
The World Health Organization has identified bipolar
disorder as the seventh-ranked cause of disability in the
world today. Nearly one in 100 Americans suffers from manic-
depression, yet research in this area has been continually
under funded.
That is slowly changing. NIMH's current Systemic Treatment
Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) is a
landmark study of 5,000 people with bipolar disorder, the
largest psychiatric trial ever held. While this is a
critically important study, it also underscores the
unfortunate circumstance that mental illnesses remain
woefully under funded. The STEP-BD trial has a budget of just
$20 million. A brief check of, for example, the National
Cancer Institute programs will reveal that this is an
unjustly small allocation for researching this pervasive and
fatal disease. In fact, in FY 1999, NIMH spent only $46
million on bipolar research. Congress must continue to
increase its investment in this important area of mental
health research.
THE IMPACT OF DEPRESSION ON OTHER ILLNESSES
National DMDA is pleased to be participating next week in
an important NIMH forum on improving health outcomes for
major diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease,
stroke, AIDS, and Parkinson's through the effective treatment
of co-occurring depression. The forum will highlight
scientific advances linking depression and other illnesses,
and the role that treating depression plays in improving the
course of the co-occurring disease. Participants will also
focus on ideas for shaping the Institute's research agenda,
and further educational and communication plans for improving
health care. National DMDA applauds NIMH for its efforts to
include the public in its agenda setting.
Important new research has shown that treatment of co-
occurring depression often improves health outcomes for
patients with a wide variety of diseases. Researchers are
tracing various aspects of depression, that may affect
illnesses as varied as neurological diseases such as
Parkinson's disease, diseases of the cardiovascular system,
and diseases involving suppression of the immune system, such
as cancer and AIDS. It appears that depression is an
important risk factor for heart disease. In a recent study,
it was found that heart patients who had depression were four
times as likely to die in the next six months as those who
were not depressed. There are also studies linking depression
and obesity and diabetes, as well as findings showing common
genetic patterns in diabetes and depression.
OTHER RESEARCH NEEDS
More research is needed on the medications for mental
illness. There has not been a drug developed specifically for
bipolar disorder since the discovery of lithium more than 50
years ago. In addition, it is not fully understood how
psychiatric drugs work in the brain. A person often must
choose between lessening suicidal thoughts or getting life
threatening rashes, seizures, or lithium poisoning. So many
of us have to choose a life without libido or a life of
fatigue, exacerbated by insomnia. Although these medications
are effective for many people, no one should have to make
choices like these. Every day technology and science bring us
further in understanding the brain and these kinds of
successes build upon each other.
National DMDA is therefore particularly pleased to see the
NIMH's renewed commitment to research of more viable
treatment options for depression and bipolar disorder and we
hope that the Congress will continue to fund important
studies in this area. Great strides are being made, but it is
critical that even more research is done on how different
medicines affect both the body and the mind.
CONCLUSION
We urge the National Institutes of Health and the National
Institute of Mental Health to continue to expand and enhance
behavioral science, neuroscience and genetics research of
mental illnesses. We commend the Subcommittee's past support
of NIH and NIMH, and look forward to continuing to work with
you in the next year to ensure renewed commitment to full
funding of mental health research. We are confident that
together, our efforts will mean real treatment options, an
end to the stigma associated with mental illness, lives saved
and a far more productive America. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify on issues critical to the health and
well being of all Americans.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF ISTHMUS
______
HON. TAMMY BALDWIN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 25th
anniversary of the founding of a unique institution in Madison,
Wisconsin, our weekly newspaper, Isthmus. Conceived as an alternative
source of news and information, nurtured by the hard work and big
dreams of its founders, Vince O'Hern and Fred Milverstedt, Isthmus'
growth and success over 25 years have mirrored Madison's.
Those of us who live in, and work in, and love Madison consider our
weekly copy of Isthmus as much a part of our city's life and character
as our renowned farmers' market or the statue atop our State Capitol's
dome.
Isthmus has been described as a hybrid that, like the community it
serves, defies easy labeling or simple description. It provides a
weekly accounting of our lives with astute analyses, groundbreaking
investigative reporting, and commentary of all stripes on who we are
and who we want to be.
Isthmus' influence has spread beyond the pages of the paper. The
Isthmus Annual Manual has become our guidebook to all that is good and
helpful in our community; while the yearly Isthmus Jazz Festival has
become a treasured weekend of good music and great moments.
On this 25th anniversary of Isthmus' founding, I applaud its talented
and industrious staff, faithful advertisers, and devoted readers who
have nurtured and supported this indispensable chronicle of our lives
the past 25 years and we look forward to the next 25!
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ALACHUA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'S 2001 QUIZ BOWL TEAM
______
HON. KAREN L. THURMAN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to six remarkable
elementary school students, Sam Hart, Ryan McCoy, Ashley Nelson, Paloma
Paredes, Megan Raulerson, and Justin Sturm; their equally remarkable
teacher, Shirley Tanner, and their school for triumphing in the 2001
National Thinking Cap Quiz Bowl.
Located in Alachua, a tiny city of approximately 5000 people, Alachua
Elementary School serves less than 600 students. Principal Jim
Brandenburg described the 106-year-old school as a ``community school''
and credited community involvement for the school's quality, explaining
that: ``Alachua is a very stable community. Many of our students'
parents and grandparents also attended Alachua Elementary School. We
don't have a lot of money but the parental involvement and community
support help make up for that.''
Alachua Elementary School is often referred to as ``the little school
that could.'' It has been honored as a Blue Ribbon School and recently
[[Page 6143]]
received an award for student achievement from the Alachua County
School Board. Furthermore, this is the second consecutive year that
Alachua Elementary School has come in first in the state in the
National Thinking Cap Quiz Bowl.
Shirley Tanner has coached both of Alachua Elementary School's
champion National Thinking Cap Quiz Bowl teams. She also makes time to
teach enrichment classes and instructs students and teachers about
technology resources. She is certainly a beloved and devoted teacher
who prefers to keep the focus on her students' accomplishments rather
than her own.
Mrs. Tanner initiated the school's involvement in the challenging
competition several years ago. The test consists of 100 computer-
generated multiple-choice questions covering a wide range of school
subjects, current events and trivia. Each of the fifth-grade students
on the quiz bowl team worked incredibly hard to win this competition.
Students who qualified for the team already had a wide range of general
knowledge, but still had to prepare for the competition. They divided
up topics in various academic disciplines and each student became an
expert in one or more fields. They studied for a minimum of an extra
hour every day, as well as practicing team-work, test-taking strategies
and speed. Mrs. Tanner says this approach is the best strategy to take
when preparing students for a competition in which they have no idea
which questions will be asked of them. They simply need to be quick
minded, calm under pressure and knowledgeable about many subjects. She
said the six students on this year's team were all of these things and
even worked hard enough on their regular school work to make the Honor
Roll. We are very proud of them.
Now let me tell you a little bit more about these wonderful kids.
Sam Hart, who also won the spelling bee at Alachua Elementary School
this year, focused on spelling. He also concentrated on sports and
children's literature. Sam is a quiet, intelligent student who Mrs.
Tanner described as ``highly respected and popular with both teachers
and peers.''
Ryan McCoy is the second member of his family to participate in the
quiz bowl. His older brother Evan McCoy was also on the school's quiz
bowl team. Ryan concentrated on sports for the competition as well as
measurements and Roman numerals.
Ashley Nelson, a straight-A student who took sixth grade math this
year, specialized in math and measurement. On test day, Ashley was the
team member chosen to enter the team's answers using the computer
keyboard or mouse pointer. Ashley performed this stressful task
``flawlessly'' according to Mrs. Tanner. She input the team answers
quickly and accurately. She also demonstrated her fine grasp of math
concepts and computation by correctly answering all the math questions
without even using a pencil or paper.
Paloma Paredes, another straight-A student, learned time zones and
geometry for the competition. Mrs. Tanner described Paloma as an
incredibly conscientious and hard-working student. Paloma studies every
chance she gets.
Megan Raulerson, also a straight-A student, was the team's language
arts expert. In addition to her schoolwork and Quiz Bowl participation,
Megan routinely appears on the school's closed circuit live video news
broadcasts. Both Megan and fellow Quiz Bowl teammate, Justin Sturm,
frequently fill in when a scheduled anchorperson fails to show up. This
means they don't even have the opportunity to read the script until a
few minutes before broadcast time. A tough job, but they do it
wonderfully.
Mrs. Tanner says that Justin Sturm ``wants to know everything about
everything.'' She says Justin excels in science and is an avid reader
and an enthusiastic learner.
I would also like to recognize last year's quiz bowl winners: Keely
Duff, Tyler Mikell, Elizabeth Keller, Katey Sands and Sara Wooding for
their achievements. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring all of
these exceptional students.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
______
HON. JAY INSLEE
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we spend countless
hours in this chamber discussing issues related to juvenile crime, and
we all agree that we must do more than merely punish juvenile
criminals--we must develop programs in our communities to keep our
youth from becoming criminals in the first place. I rise today to pay
special tribute to some wonderful individuals from the Snohomish County
Prosecutor's office that are helping our young people to become
healthy, productive, law-abiding citizens. These volunteers, in
collaboration with local schoolteachers, conduct the Courtrooms to
Classrooms program.
This innovative program, funded through a federal grant, provides
young students an opportunity to learn nonviolent problem solving
techniques and avoid self-destructive behaviors. Initiated by
Prosecuting Attorney James Krider and adapted by Lynn Mattson-Eul, the
Courtrooms to Classrooms's curriculum allows students to: bound with
positive role models, appreciate how laws influence their daily lives,
learn about our justice system, and explore new career options from
local prosecuting attorneys. The Courtrooms to Classroom program
assists students in understanding the individual responsibilities one
has as a member of society, and developing analytical skills when
making routine and serious decisions. One of the highlights of the
program is the mock trial of the storybook character ``Goldilocks.'' It
is obvious that the important lessons these young people take away from
the Courtrooms to Classrooms program will stay with them the rest of
their lives.
I encourage my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking the following
individuals for taking the time to improve this country by
participating in the lives of our children.
Those individuals are: Kathy Jo Kristof, Scott Lord, Becky Quirk,
Walt Sowa, Charlie Blackman, Julie Twito, Jim Townsend, Paul Stern,
Mara Rozzano, Aaron Shields, Jason Cummings, Tom Curtis, Chris
Dickinson, Colleen St. Clair, Dave Kurtz, Randy Yates, Dave Thiele,
Patricia Lyon, Seth Fine, Steven Bladek, Michael Held, John Swanson,
Serena Hart, Kerri Oseguera, Sandra Walters, Marie Turk, Ted Mueser,
Mark Roe, Craig Matheson, Lisa Paul, Remy Leonard, Barbara Finnie, Matt
Hunter, John Stansell, Kathy Patterson, Craig Bray, Cindy Larsen, Erica
Temple, Hal Hupp, Ed Stemier, George Appel, Karen Jorgensen-Peters,
Lisa Hanna, Linda Scoccia, Tim Geraghty, Sherry King, Karen Moore, Dave
Wold, Diane Kremenich, Susan Lewis, Debbie Cicardini, Karen Kahmann,
Diana Kinnebrew, Patricia Bear, Tricia Bryant, Anna Clark, Chery Park,
Amy Matthiesen, and Cheri Wantola.
____________________
FORCED CHILD LABOR IN CHINA
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer
my sincerest condolences to the families of the 42 individuals--
including 37 young school children--who died in a horrible explosion in
China on March 6 of this year. This tragedy resulted from a situation
of forced child labor in which the deceased third- and fourth-graders
were required to spend long hours during the school day making
firecrackers. Along with 16 co-sponsors, today I am introducing a
bipartisan resolution that expresses condolences to the families of the
deceased and expresses support for international trade agreements that
will enforce the International Labor Organization's core labor
standards, which include prohibition of child labor and forced labor.
For years, the parents of children in the Fanglin elementary school,
which is in a small village 40 miles southwest of Shanghai, had
complained that their children were being forced by school officials to
manufacture large firecrackers at school. Every day, the young children
were required to spend hours mounting fuses and detonators into the
firecrackers that were then sold by local officials. To ensure that
their monetary intake remained high, the officials set a sliding
production quota that started at 1,000 firecrackers per day for the
youngest children and reached 10,000 firecrackers per day for the
fifth-graders.
It was only a matter of time before this disturbing example of forced
and dangerous child labor would end in tragedy. On a Tuesday afternoon,
the firecrackers exploded in the elementary school and took the lives
of the 37 young children.
Chinese Prime Minister Zhu immediately denied the use of forced child
labor, and Communist Party officials invented a story about a ``mad
man'' who entered the school and set off the explosion as part of his
suicide attempt. However, thanks to the courageous and persistent
reporting of both Chinese and international journalists, Prime Minister
Zhu was eventually forced to acknowledge the true events of March 6.
The forced labor and child labor in China violates several
conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO), but
unfortunately the ILO has no enforcement powers. I
[[Page 6144]]
ask my colleagues to join me in supporting a bipartisan House
Resolution that expresses our condolences to the families of the
deceased and urges strong international action to enforce the ILO core
labor standards.
____________________
THE 47TH ANNUAL NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST
______
HON. STEVE LARGENT
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House and Senate Prayer
Groups, it was an honor to chair the 47th Annual National Prayer
Breakfast held on February 4th, 1999.
This annual breakfast is an opportunity for leaders and guests from
around the world to join in love and unity as we celebrate our faith in
God and the religious freedom that our country protects. We put our
differences aside and come together as children of God of pray for
peace and reconciliation.
No other event during my years as a member of Congress has been such
a blessing as the National Prayer Breakfast. The thoughts and prayers
shared at this year's breakfast were beneficial to those who attended,
and I believe they will be so many more. I am therefore including the
program and transcript to be printed in the Record. The program and
transcript follow:
1999 NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1999, HILTON
WASHINGTON AND TOWERS HOTEL, WASHINGTON, DC
Chairman: Representative Steve Largent
Representative Largent. My name is Steve Largent, and I
want to welcome you to the National Prayer Breakfast. I am a
member of the House of Representatives from the state of
Oklahoma, and I am this year's chairman and will be acting as
the Master of Ceremonies for at the prayer breakfast this
year.
It is my pleasure at this time to introduce Mr. Jim Kimsey,
who will begin with our pre-breakfast prayer.
Mr. Kimsey. Basil was a fourth-century saint from Asia
Minor. He said, ``We pray in the morning to give us the first
stirrings our mind to God. Before anything else, let the
thought of God gladden you.'' Would you begin this day with
me in prayer?
Dear God, may the efforts of all those gathered here today
reach far and wide--our thoughts, our work, our lives. Make
them blessings for your kingdom. Let them go beyond today.
Our lives today have consequences unseen. Each life has a
purpose. Please, God, grant us the wisdom to recognize that
purpose.
Today is new and unlike any other day, for God makes each
day different. To live each day wisely, we need wisdom--
wisdom in our hearts and in our thoughts. We need wisdom in
the choices we make. Psalm 90 implores us, ``Lord, teach us
to number our days aright, that we may gain wisdom in our
heart.''
Each day, like today, we pray to God to help us to do the
things that matter, not to waste the time we have. We know
the moments we have are precious. We pray that God helps us
count them dear and teach us to number our days aright; that
he fills this day and every day with kindness so that we may
be glad and rejoice all the days of our life.
Numbering our days aright is crucial for our own happiness,
but it is even more important for the rest of the world. Each
day we are presented with opportunities to make a difference;
small differences, like a hello to a lonely neighbor, to
extra change dropped in a homeless person's cup. And we can
make big differences feeding the hungry, teaching children to
read, bridging understanding and peace between nations. Every
difference you make matters, just as every day matters.
Edmund Burke wisely noted long ago, ``The only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.''
We are especially blessed today. We have a unique
opportunity in our frantic lives to begin with prayer and
listen to the wisdom of the incredible group assembled here
today. I would like to leave you with one thought. Yesterday
is history, and tomorrow is a mystery. But today is a gift.
Thank you.
(Opening Song by the United States Army Chorus.)
Representative Largent. Thank you to the United States Army
Chorus. We appreciate that. That is inspiring, and a good way
to start the breakfast.
At this time I would like to call to the podium General
Dennis Reimer, who is the Chief of Staff of the Army, for our
opening prayer.
General Reimer. Let us pray.
Almighty and eternal God, creator of all things, we ask
Your presence with us at this gathering this morning as we
raise our minds and hearts to You. May the words we share be
an echo of Your voice. We are grateful for our nation's long
and abiding legacy of freedom. We thank You for Your gifts,
which become richer as we share them, and more secure as we
guard them for one another.
Gracious Lord, we praise You for the spirit of liberty You
have established through our nation's founders. Lord, we
remember this morning the words of Peter Marshall, who gave
thanks for the rich heritage of this good land, for the
evidences of Thy favor in the past and for the hand that hath
made and preserved this nation. We thank You for the men and
women who, by blood and sweat, by toil and tears, forged on
the anvil of their own sacrifice all that we hold dear. May
we never lightly esteem what they obtained at a great price.
Grateful for rights and privileges, may we be conscious of
duties and obligations. May his words continue to be
timeless.
Lord, we ask that You will strengthen us to stand firmly
against cruel and heartless discrimination or prejudice of
any kind. In Your holy presence we ask that the things which
make for peace may not be hidden from our eyes. Help us to
catch Your vision of a greater destiny and the call of holy
responsibility. May the moral fibers of duty, honor and
country be seen in all we do.
Lord our God, in profound gratitude we ask Your blessing on
the United States of America. Bless now this food to our use
and us to Your service. In Your holy name we pray. Amen.
Representative Largent. Thank you, General Reimer, a great
Oklahoman.
Please enjoy your meal. We will continue with the program
in about 15 minutes. Thank you.
(Breakfast)
Representative Largent. In addition to the President and
First Lady, and the Vice President, this morning we have a
number of special guests. We have members of the Senate and
the House, and members of the President's Cabinet. We have
members of the Joint Chiefs, prime ministers, heads of
corporations, student leaders and numerous other dignitaries.
We have people from all 50 states and over 150 countries
represented here this morning. (Applause.)
In addition, we have with us several heads of state which I
would like to recognize at this time. We have His Excellency
Ljubco Georgievski, Prime Minister of the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia. (Applause.) Also joining us is His
Excellency Mathieu Kerekou, President of the Republic of
Benin. (Applause.) His Excellency Jamil Mahuad, President of
Ecuador. (Applause.) And His Excellency Pandeli Majko, Prime
Minister of the Republic of Albania. (Applause.) I get extra
credit for all of that. (Laughter.)
At this time, I would like to introduce the head table.
Beginning on my left and your right is Mr. Jim Kimsey. He is
the founder of America On Line and is a gentleman who has a
deep love for the District of Columbia. With Mr. Kimsey is
Ms. Holidae Hayes. We are glad to have you here. (Applause.)
Next to them is Mr. Michael W. Smith. He is a Grammy-
winning recording artist who will perform for us later, and
his wife Debbie. (Applause.)
Next we have Dr. Laura Schlessinger, also known as Dr.
Laura. (Applause.) I don't even need to say who she is,
right? (Laughter.) No, she is one of America's most listened-
to radio talk show hosts. She is the co-author of the current
bestseller, ``The Ten Commandments: The Significance of God's
Law in Everyday Life.'' She is also a licensed marriage,
family and children's counselor and is frequently referred to
as America's mommy. (Applause.)
Next to Dr. Schlessinger is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
an outstanding senator from the state of Texas, who will
share with you later about the Senate and House breakfast
groups. Senator, thank you. (Applause.)
Next is Annie Glenn, wife of Senator John Glenn. Annie is a
great friend and a great example for us all. (Applause.) And
then we have Senator Glenn, who is one of our national
heroes, whose return to space last year had me considering
out of retirement, briefly. (Applause.)
Next is our Vice President, Al Gore. Every year Congress
hosts a National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and
Values, and this year the Vice President and his wife Tipper
were kind enough to open up their home to about 200 student
leaders from across the country and actually spent a lot of
time with them individually, talking with them. Mr. Vice
President, please tell Tipper we said thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Next are President Clinton and the First Lady. (Applause.)
I want to tell you an interesting story that I think also is
a bit of a glimpse behind the scenes of President Clinton.
After the prayer breakfast two years ago, I sent him a note
thanking him for his remarks, which were wonderful, as they
will be this morning. He actually was in the process of
writing me a note and said, ``No, I thought I would just
call.''
So he called our home, and my daughter Casie, who at that
time was about 15 years old, answered the phone and said,
``The President of the United States is calling for
Congressman Steve Largent.'' My daughter put the phone on
hold and came and got me and she said, ``Dad, somebody said
that the President is on the line. Would you please get him
off the line because I've got Brad Pitt holding on the other
line.'' (Applause.)
[[Page 6145]]
Next to the First Lady is my first lady, Terry Largent.
(Applause.)
Next we have our speaker this morning, Max Lucado and his
wife Denalyn. I will tell you more about Max just a little
bit later. (Applause.)
Next to the Lucados is Senator Joseph Lieberman, a great
senator and a man who is known for his integrity and for his
love of God. (Applause.)
Next is one of my good friends and colleagues in the House
of Representatives, Harold Ford, Jr. He is the first African-
American in history to succeed his father in the U.S. House
of Representatives. (Applause.)
And next to Congressman Ford are General Dennis Reimer, who
I introduced earlier, one of our great military leaders, and
his wife, Mrs. Mary Jo Reimer. (Applause.)
As we gather this morning, this is the National Prayer
Breakfast, and there are many around the world who need our
prayers here this morning. I want to take a moment to mention
just a few of the people that are in dire need of our prayers
this morning, including King Hussein, Billy Graham, Pope John
Paul II, and the victims of the recent earthquake in
Colombia. In fact, it is my understanding that King Hussein
is undergoing therapy for cancer treatment as we are speaking
and is watching the prayer breakfast this morning.
Many in the Senate and the House breakfast group have had
the opportunity over the years to become friends in this
fellowship with his majesty, King Hussein of Jordan. As
friends, we have prayed with his majesty in times of triumph
and times of trial. And as he undergoes treatment this week
for the trial of a lifetime, we join all our prayers to
uplift his spirit and strengthen his family, his loved ones
and his medical care team in a special way.
Also, many of you may be here this morning asking, ``What
is the prayer breakfast and why am I here?'' I want to tell
you just a little bit about the prayer breakfast and its
genesis. It is not very complicated, actually. There was a
small group that began meeting in the Senate back in the
early 1950s. They were joined later by a small group that
began in the House. At some time they decided, wouldn't it be
a good idea if the House group and the Senate group met
together to pray for the President of the United States. And
that is how the prayer breakfast began 47 years ago. You are
going to hear a little bit more about the Senate and House
groups from Senator Hutchison and what we are doing in both
chambers as we speak.
The members concluded that whether our country is
experiencing peace or war, bounty or struggle, there is a
tremendous need for people of faith to lift the President up
in prayer. This is not now, nor has it ever been, a political
event. When we come to the prayer breakfast, we take our
political hats off and come together to talk and pray about
the principles of Jesus.
One individual who embodies these principles and who
generally graces our presence here at the prayer breakfast is
Dr. Billy Graham. Unfortunately, because of his health
considerations, Dr. Graham is unable to attend this year.
However, by way of a letter, he sends his greetings. I would
like to share a portion of his letter with you, because I
believe it captures the spirit of the occasion.
Dr. Graham writes, ``After so many years, the most
difficult thing for me to do is to inform you that I will not
be able to come to the prayer breakfast as I had planned. I
hope you will give my greetings and the promise of prayer for
this important gathering this morning. Our country is in need
of a unity that only God can bring. We must as a people
repent of our sins and turn to God in faith. He alone can
heal our divisions, forgive our sins and bring the spiritual
renewal the nation needs if we are to survive. I deeply
regret that I cannot be with you today, but I will be in
prayer that God will give the greatest spirit of spiritual
renewal that we have ever had. Please assure the President
and Mrs. Clinton, Vice President and Mrs. Gore, and the other
leaders gathered at the breakfast, that they are in my
constant prayers. God bless you all. Billy Graham.''
(Applause.)
Mr. President, I would just add that our prayer is that
while you are here with us, you will have a sense of peace
and rest and will understand that as you leave here that
there are people all over the world that are praying for you.
Now, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will share with you about
the House and Senate prayer groups.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Congressman Largent. And
thank you for all the work you have done to make this a
wonderful event. (Applause.) Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Vice President, we are so honored to have all of our
guests today.
It is gratifying to see such a large and distinguished
crowd for this great Washington tradition. We come for our
own reasons, some more inspired than others. For some, it is
the prayer. Perhaps for some it is the breakfast. (Scattered
laughter.) But as I look around this morning, in this city, I
am reminded about the small-town Texas preacher who phoned
the local newspaper editor on Monday to thank him for making
a mistake in the paper. And the editor said, ``Well, why are
you thanking me for the mistake?'' And the preacher said,
``Well, the topic I sent you was, `What Jesus Saw in the
Publicans and Plutocrats.' What you printed was, `What Jesus
Saw in Republicans and Democrats.' The curiosity brought me
the greatest crowd of the year.'' (Laughter.)
Obviously, we do not come here today as Republicans or
Democrats, or even as Americans. We come as God's human
creation, seeking guidance in our daily lives. I am pleased
to report for the United States Senate and the House of
Representatives this morning. Each of us has a regular weekly
meeting at breakfast, and our regulars rarely miss it. It is
the priority time on our schedules. It is a time for
fellowship and reflection, two commodities that are often in
short supply in the course of our daily lives.
It is also a time to renew old acquaintances. One of the
regulars who grace the Senate meeting is former Senate
Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Every Wednesday morning he
comes in and orders bacon and eggs and biscuits, and all of
my younger colleagues are eating granola and fruit.
(Laughter.) We tell him we love to see a guy that still eats
like a guy. (Laughter.) We figure that the breakfast and the
prayer is working for him, because he is 96 years old.
(Applause.)
We are blessed with occasional drop-ins. Both the Vice
President and the President have dropped in on our prayer
breakfasts, and we enjoy it very much. but mostly it is just
us, our members and our former members, who are always
welcome. We spend our sessions discussing different things.
Sometimes it is the events of the day and what bearing they
may have on our spiritual growth and renewal. At other times,
we hear the testimony of a colleague or we help him or her
respond to a personal crisis. There is only one informal
rule: we never discuss Senate or House business.
The Senate and the House are institutions, that, by their
very nature and genius, are diverse. They represent varied
sections and interests that define the great nation that is
ours. They come together to find common ground. But in our
prayer breakfast, we start on common ground and we grow
together from there. We start from the acceptance that each
of us is flawed, that we all need guidance, and that none of
us alone has the answers. We grow from the relationship that
bonds us. We gain the strength to fulfill our collective duty
to develop and nurture one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. That is what all of us hope
that this annual meeting does, to inspire us to do better in
the next year for our respective nations.
Thank you. Thank you, Steve. (Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Senator. And now, for a
reading from the Holy Scriptures, Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
Dr. Schlessinger. First, I would just like to say I cannot
tell you how touched and honored I am to be here doing this.
You have no idea what it means to me. This is Deuteronomy 8.
``You shall faithfully observe all the instruction that I
enjoin upon you today, that you may thrive and increase and
be able to possess the land that the Lord promised on oath to
your fathers. Remember the long way that the Lord your God
has made you travel in the wilderness these past 40 years,
that he might test you by hardship to learn what is in your
hearts, whether you would keep his commandments or not.
``He subjected you to the hardship of hunger and then gave
you manna to eat, which neither you nor your fathers had ever
known, in order to teach you that man does not live by bread
alone, but that man may live on anything that the Lord
decrees. The clothes upon you did not wear out, nor did your
feet swell these 40 years.
``Bear in mind that Lord your God disciplines you just as a
man disciplines his son. Therefore, keep the commandments of
the Lord your God. Walk in his ways and revere him. For the
Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land with
streams and springs and fountains issuing from plain and
hill, a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs and
pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey, a land where
you may eat food without scarcity, where you will lack
nothing, a land whose rocks are iron and from whose hills you
can mine copper.
``When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to the Lord
your God for the good land which he has given you. Take care,
lest you forget the Lord your God and fail to keep his
commandments, his rules and his laws, which I enjoin upon you
today. When you have eaten your fill and have built fine
houses to live in and your herds and flocks have multiplied
and your silver and gold have increased and everything you
own has prospered, beware lest your hearts grow haughty and
you forget the Lord your God, who freed you from the land of
Egypt, the house of bondage, who led you through the great
and terrible wilderness with its serpents and scorpions, a
parched land with no water on it, who brought forth water for
you from the flinty rock, who fed you in the wilderness with
manna, which your fathers had never known, in order to test
you by hardship, only to benefit you in the end.
[[Page 6146]]
``You say to yourselves, `My own power and the might of my
own had have won this wealth for me.' Remember that it is the
Lord your God who gives you the power to get wealth in
fulfillment of the covenant that he made on oath with your
fathers, as is still the case. If you do forget the Lord your
God and follow other gods to serve them or bow down to them.
I warn you this day that you shall certainly perish. Like the
nations that the Lord will cause to perish before you, so
shall you perish, because you did not heed the Lord your
God.''
Shalom. (Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Dr. Laura. Now Michael
W. Smith.
(Michael W. Smith sings ``Salvation Belongs to God.'')
Representative Largent. Thank you, Michael.
As you are aware, Senator Glenn made history recently by
returning to space 36 years after he became the first
American to orbit the earth. During Senator Glenn's space
flight last year, he kept in contact with the President via
E-mail. At one point, the President E-mailed Senator Glenn to
let him know he had spoken to an 83-year-old woman from
Queens and asked her what she thought of the mission. She
replied that it seemed like a perfectly fine thing for a
young man like Senator Glenn to do. (Laughter.) So please
welcome the young Senator Glenn to the podium (Applause.)
Senator Glenn. Thank you. (Continued applause.) Thank you
all very much. Thank you all very, very much. Steve, I thank
you for that introduction very much also.
Let me add a couple of Old Testament thoughts to what Dr.
Laura just read for you a moment ago. These readings have
been favorites of mine for a long time, and I wanted to add
those before I get over into a couple of quotes from the New
Testament.
I am sure you all are very familiar with that part in
Ecclesiastes that start out, ``To everything there is a
season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.'' I won't
take time to read all of it exactly, but you remember that.
``A time to be born and die, plant, pluck up that which is
planted, a time to kill, heal, break down, build up, weep,
laugh, mourn, dance, cast away stones, gather stones,
embrace, time to refrain, time to get, time to lose, time to
keep, cast away, rend and sow, silence, speak, love and hate,
time of war, time of peace.''
That about covers the whole gamut of the human existence.
There is not much we could add to that. That has always been
one that I thought leads us to believe that there is a time
for everything intended for us, that God wants us to live a
full life. There is a time for everything. There is a time to
live and a time to do--for all of these things.
There is another passage I also like. This came to me and
has been a favorite, because when I was training way back in
World War II days, which does show my age, I guess, my mother
sent a passage to me that I have always thought was very
apropos, not only for that time and what I was looking
forward to then, but also no matter what happens to us any
time in life. And that is out of Psalm 139.
``Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither shall I
flee from they presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
there. If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou are there.''
And this part in particular: ``If I take the wings of the
morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even
there shall thy hand lead me and they right hand shall hold
me.'' To me, that dwelling in the uttermost parts of the sea
also means going into space, I can tell you that. Those two
passages together I have always thought were about my
favorite parts of the Scripture.
Now to our New Testament reading, which I understand is
also the favorite of some of the other people here this
morning. Romans 8: ``Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or persecution or
famine or nakedness or peril or sword? As it is written, `For
thy sake, we are killed all day long. We are counted as sheep
for the slaughter.' Nay, in all these things, we are more
than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded
that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor
powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor
depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate us
from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.''
The second passage is out of Phillippians: ``Rejoice in the
Lord always. And again I say, rejoice. Let you moderation be
known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Be careful for
nothing, but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with
thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God. And
the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep
your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally,
brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are
honest, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are
lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any
virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things. Those
things which ye have both learned and received and heard and
seen in me, do. And the God of peace shall be with you.''
Thank you. (Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Senator Glenn. Please
welcome to the podium, ladies and gentleman, the Vice
President of the United States, Albert Gore, Jr. (Applause.)
Vice President Gore. Thank you, Steve. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Congressman Largent; Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton;
Mr. Speaker; distinguished guests.
To all of those who have worked so hard to make this
breakfast what it is, including a lot of men and women in the
Overflow Room, who did more work than anybody else, I want to
thank them. When I went over to speak with them during the
breakfast briefly, by sheer coincidence, I read exactly the
same passage from Romans that John just picked here.
And to all of you, I want to thank you joining us at this
annual gathering, which reaffirms America as a pilgrim people
and a nation of faith.
Every one of us, I believe, has a task appointed for us by
the Lord. We are reminded, ``Whatsoever thy hand findeth to
do, do it with thy might.'' A teacher should teach with all
his heart, a parent should care for her child as if all
heaven were watching, a machinist should take the utmost
pride in a job well done, because all of us are asked by God
to devote our daily work to others and to his glory. All of
us have a chance to be made great, not by our achievements
measured in the world's eyes, but through our commitment to a
path of righteousness and to one another.
I also believe our nation has a task appointed for it by
the Lord. As the Gospel says, ``Let your light so shine
before men that they may see your good works and glorify your
Father, which is in heaven.'' Though our founders separated
Church and State, they never forgot that this eternal
spiritual light illuminated the principles of democracy, and
especially the idea of the preciousness and equality of every
human being. The truth that underlies the Constitution is
that every human being, no matter how rich or how poor, how
powerful or how rail, is made in God's holy image and must be
treated accordingly.
We have seen, especially in this century, how dangerous and
destructive the world becomes when individuals, nations, and
leaders forget this eternal truth. Without it, the door to
evil is wrenched open, wreaking untold misery on the human
race; demagoguery and cruelty, racial hatred and
totalitarianism may enter unchecked.
When we understand our real nature and responsibility as
true sons and daughters of the living God, it does not mean
we retreat from the world, even though all of us know how
hard the world can be on our ideals. Rather, God asks us to
move forward into human institutions and, instead of
conforming ourselves to them, change them for the better,
doing our best to listen to the small, still voice that
should guide us.
A little farther in that part of Romans, in a different
translation, is a passage that has always meant a lot to me:
``Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by
the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is
the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Let
love be genuine. Hate what is evil. Hold fast to what is
good. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty,
but associate with the lowly. Do not claim to be wiser than
you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought
for what is noble in the sight of all.''
An old folk tale says there are two ways to warm yourself
when it is very cold. One is by putting on a luxurious coat;
the other is by lighting a fire. The difference is that the
fur coat warms only yourself, while the fire lights anyone
who comes near.
We have a comparable choice every day. Indeed, we are at a
moment of great spiritual opportunity to choose right. The
end of the millennium is drawing near, so let us carry no
spiritual debts into a new time, but recommit to a future
where we elevate mankind's faith and fill the world with
justice. (Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
I was joking with the Vice President earlier that the
prayer breakfast is on Thursday, but his prayers were
answered earlier in the week when Mr. Gephardt pulled out of
the presidential primary. (Laughter.)
It gives me great honor to introduce our speaker this
morning, Mr. Max Lucado. Max is probably best know as a best-
selling author, having 11 million books in print. Although I
have read many of his books, the one that truly touched me
the most has been one of his children's books called ``You
are Special.'' I have given this book to several friends and
have read it aloud on various occasions, especially when I
speak with young people. When I was asked to choose a speaker
this morning, I immediately thought of Max, because I am
convinced that someone who writes the way he writes knows a
great deal about the unconditional love of God. So, Max,
please come and share with us what is on your heart this
morning. (Applause.)
Mr. Lucado. Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Vice
President. I cannot thank you enough for this wonderful
privilege that you have given me and my wife, Denalyn, to be
with you this morning. Thank you, Congressman Largent, for
those kind words.
I never quite know how people respond to those of us who
write. Not long ago I was
[[Page 6147]]
speaking at a conference and a man came up to me afterwards
and said, ``I've never had dinner with an author before.''
And I said, ``Well, you buy, I'll eat.'' (Laughter.) So off
we went and had a delightful chat. Some days later I received
a note from him in which he said, ``I thoroughly enjoyed our
visit, but you were not as intelligent as I thought you would
be'' (Laughter.) You can't please everyone.
I will do my best to keep my remarks brief. Not long ago I
was speaking and a man got up in the middle of my
presentation and began walking out. I stopped everything and
I said, ``Sir, can you tell me where you're going?'' He said,
``I's going to get a haircut.'' I said, ``Why didn't you get
one before you came in?'' He said, ``I didn't need one before
I came in.'' (Laughter.)
I have asked several people associated with the breakfast
why the invitation came my way. The answer that really made
the most sense was the briefest one, and that is, ``We
thought you might share a few words about Jesus,'' a request
I am privileged to attempt to fulfill.
The final paragraph on the invitation that we received
defines the National Prayer Breakfast as ``a fellowship in
the spirit of Jesus.'' How remarkable that such an event even
exists. It speaks so highly of you, our leaders, that you
would convene such a gathering and clear times out of your
very busy schedule to attend such a gathering, not under any
religious or political auspices, but in the spirit of Jesus.
Thank you that during these dramatic hours you have made
prayer a priority.
This breakfast speaks highly of you, our guests. You weave
a tapestry this morning of 160 different nations, traditions
and cultures, representing a variety of backgrounds but
united by a common desire to do what is right for your
people. And you are welcome here. Each and every one of you
are welcome.
The breakfast is a testimony to you, our leaders, to you,
our guests, but most of all, wouldn't you agree?, the
breakfast is a testimony to Jesus of Nazareth. Regardless of
our perception and understanding and opinion of him, how
remarkable that 2,000 years after his birth, we are gathered
to consider this life, a man of humble origins, a brother to
the poor, a friend of sinners and the great reconciler of
people.
It is the last attribute of Jesus I thought we could
consider for just a few moments, his ability to reconcile the
divided, his ability to deal with contentious people. After
all, don't we all deal with people and don't we all know how
contentious they can be? How does that verse go? ``To live
above with those we love, O, how that will be glory. But to
live below with those we know, now, that's another story.''
(Laughter.)
I found this out in college when I found a girl whom I
really liked and I took her home to meet my mom, but my mom
didn't like her, so I took her back. (Laughter.) I found
another girl I really liked, and so I took her home to meet
my mom, but mom didn't like her either. So I took her back. I
found another girl, took her home. Mom didn't like her. I
went through a dormitory full of girls--(laughter)--until
finally I found one that I knew my mom would like because she
looked just like my mom. She walked like my mom. She talked
like my mom. So I took her home, and my dad could not stand
her. (Laughter.)
People are tough to deal with. But tucked away in the pages
of the Bible is the story of Jesus guiding a contentious
group through a crisis. If you will turn your attention to
the inside of your program that you received, you will read
the words written by a dear friend of Jesus, the apostle
John. And he tells us this story:
``Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his
power and that he had come from God and was returning to God.
So he got up from the meal, he took off his outer clothing,
he wrapped a towel around his waist. After that he poured
water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet,
drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He
came to Simon Peter, who said to him, `Lord, are you going to
wash my feet?' And Jesus replied, `You do not realize what I
am doing, but later you will understand.' `No,' said Peter.
`You shall never wash my feet.' And Jesus answered, `Unless I
wash you, you have no part with me.' `Then, Lord,' Simon
Peter replied, `not just my feet, but my hands and my head as
well.' ''
It is the final night of Jesus' life, the night before his
death, and Jesus and his disciples have gathered for what
will be their final meal together. You would think his
followers would be sensitive to the demands of the hour, but
they are not. They are divided. Another follower by the name
of Luke in his gospel writes these words: ``The disciples
began to argue about which of them was the important.'' Can
you imagine? The leader is about to be killed and the
followers are posturing for power. This is a contentious
group.
Not only are they contentious; they are cowardly. Before
the night is over, the soldiers will come and the followers
will scatter, and those who sit with him at the table will
abandon him in the garden. Can you imagine a more stressful
evening--death threats on one side and contentious and
quarrelsome followers on the other? I suppose some of you
can. That may sound like a typical day at the office. But we
know that the response of Jesus was not at all typical.
But I wonder what our response would be. Perhaps we would
preach a sermon on team work, maybe point a few fingers or
pound a few tables. That is probably what we would do. But
what does Jesus do? How does he guide a divided team through
a crisis? He stands and he removes his coat and he wraps a
servant's towel around his waist. He takes up the wash basin
and he kneels before one of his disciples. Unlacing a sandal,
he gently lifts the disciple's foot and places it in the wash
basin, covers it with water and begins to clean it. One by
one, Jesus works his way down the row, one grimy foot after
another. He washes the feet of his followers.
By the way, I looked for the verse in the Bible that says
Jesus washed all of the disciples' feet except the feet of
Judas, but I could not find it. The feet of Judas were washed
as well. No one was excluded.
You may be aware that the washing of feet was a task
reserved not just for the servants but for the lowest of
servants. Every group has its pecking order, and a group of
household servants was no exception. And whoever was at the
bottom of that pecking order was the one given the towel and
the one given the basin. But in this case, the one with the
towel and the one with the basin is the one whom many of us
esteem as the creator and king of the universe. What a
thought. Hands which shaped the stars, rubbing dirt; fingers
which formed mountains, massaging toes. And the one before
whom all nations will one day bow, kneeling before his
friends, before his divided and disloyal band of friends.
It is important to note that Jesus is not applauding their
behavior. He is not applauding their actions. He simply
chooses to love them and respect them, in spite of their
actions. he literally and symbolically cups the grimiest part
of their lives in his hands and cleanses it with forgiveness.
Isn't this what this gesture means? To wash someone's feet is
to touch the mistakes of their lives and cleanse them with
kindness. Sometimes there is no other option. Sometimes
everything that can be said has been said. Sometimes the most
earnest defense is inadequate. There are some conflicts,
whether in nations or in homes, which can only be resolved
with a towel and a basin of water.
``But Max,'' you might be saying, ``I'm not the one to wash
feet. I've done nothing wrong.'' Perhaps you have done
nothing wrong. But neither did Jesus. You see, the genius of
Jesus' example is that the burden of bridge-building falls on
the strong one, not on the weak one. It is the one in the
right who takes the initiative.
And you know what happens? When the one in the right
volunteers to wash the feet of the one in the wrong, both
parties end up on their knees. For don't we always think we
are right? We kneel to wash feet only to look up and see our
adversary, who is kneeling to wash ours. What better posture
from which to resolve our differences?
By the way, this story offers a clear picture of what it
means to be a follower of Jesus. We have allowed the
definition to get so confusing. Some think it has something
to do with attending a certain church or embracing a
particular political view. Really it is much simpler. A
follower of Jesus is one who has placed his or her life where
the disciples placed their feet--in the hands of Jesus. And
just as he cleansed their feet with water, so he cleanses our
mistakes with forgiveness.
That is why followers of Jesus must be the very first to
wash the feet of others. Jesus goes on to say, ``If I, your
Lord and master, have washed your feet, you should wash one
another's feet. I did this as an example so that you should
do as I have done for you.''
I wonder what would happen if we accepted this challenge,
if we followed Jesus's example. What if we all determined to
resolve conflict by the washing of feet? If we did, here is
what might occur. We would listen, really listen, when people
speak. We would be kind to those who curse us and quick to
forgive those who ask our forgiveness. We would be more
concerned about being fair than being noticed. We would not
lower our God-given standards, nor would we soften our
hearts. We would keep our minds open, our hearts tender and
our thoughts humble. And we would search for and find the
goodness that God has placed within each person, and love it.
Would our problems be solved overnight? No. Jesus's were
not. Judas still sold out and the disciples still ran away.
But in time--in fact, in short time--they all came back and
they formed a nucleus of followers who changed the course of
history. And no doubt they must have learned what I pray we
learn this morning: that some problems can only be solved
with a towel and a basin of water.
Let's pray together. Our Father, you have taught us that
the line between good and evil does not run down geographical
or political boundaries but runs through each of our hearts.
Please expand that part of us which is good and diminish that
part of us which is evil. Let your great blessings be upon
our President and his family, our Vice President and his
family, and all of these leaders and dignitaries gathered.
But we look to you as the ultimate creator, director and
author of
[[Page 6148]]
the universe. Lead us to someone today whose mistakes we
might touch with kindness. By your power we pray. Amen.
(Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Max. At this time I want
to make one other brief introduction, and that is the new
Speaker of the House of Representatives, my friend from
Illinois, Denny Hastert.
I want to say it is my privilege and high honor to at this
time introduce the President of the United States, Mr.
William Jefferson Clinton. (Applause.)
President Clinton. Thank you very much.
Steve, distinguished head table guests, to the leaders from
around the world who are here, the members of Congress, Mr.
Speaker and others, ladies and gentlemen.
I feel exactly the way I did the first time I ever gave a
speech as a public official, to the Pine Bluff Rotary Club
Officers Installation Banquet in January of 1977. The dinner
started at 6:30. There were 500 people there. All but three
were introduced; they went home mad. (Laughter.) We had been
there since 6:30. I was introduced at a quarter to 10. The
guy that introduced me was so nervous he did not know what to
do, and, so help me, the first words out of his mouth were,
``You know, we could stop here and have had a very nice
evening.'' (Laughter.) He did not mean it the way it sounded,
but I do mean it. We could stop here and have had a very
wonderful breakfast. You were magnificent, Max. Thank you
very much (Applause.)
I did want to assure you that one of the things that has
been said here today repeatedly is absolutely true. Senator
Hutchison was talking about how when we come here, we set
party aside, and there is absolutely no politics in this. I
can tell you that is absolutely so. I have had a terrific
relationship with Steve Largent, and he has yet to vote with
me the first time. (Laughter.) So I know there is no politics
in this prayer breakfast. (Laughs.)
We come here every year. Hillary and I were staying up kind
of late last night talking about what we should say today and
who would be here. I would like to ask you to think about
what Max Lucado said in terms of the world we live in, for it
is easier to talk about than to do, this idea of making peace
with those who are different from us.
We have certain signs of hope, of course. last Good Friday
in Northern Ireland, the Irish Protestants and the Irish
Catholics set aside literally centuries of distrust and chose
peace for their children.
Last October, at the Wye Plantation in Maryland, Chairman
Arafat, Abu Mazin and the Palestinian delegation, and Prime
Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli delegation went through
literally sleepless nights to try to save the peace process
in the Middle East and put it back on track.
Throughout this year, we have worked with our allies to
deepen the peace in Bosnia, and we are delighted to have the
leader of the Republika Srpska here today. We are working
today to avoid a new catastrophe in Kosovo, with some hopeful
signs.
We also have worked to guarantee religious freedom to those
who disagree with all of us in this room, recognizing that so
much of the trouble in the world is rooted in what we believe
are the instructions we get from God to do things to people
who are different from us. And we think the only answer is to
promote religious freedom at home and around the world.
I want to thank all of you who helped us to pass the
Religious Freedom Act of 1998. I would like say a special
word of appreciation to Dr. Robert Seiple, the former head of
World Vision, who is here with us today. He is not America's
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
Later this month, I will appoint three members to the United
States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The
Congress has already nominated its' members.
We know that is a part of it. But, respectfully, I would
suggest it is not enough. As we pray for peace, as well
listen to what Max said, we say, well, of course it is God's
will. But the truth is, throughout history, people have
prayed to God to aid them in war. People have claimed
repeatedly that it was God's will that they prevail in
conflict. Christians have done it at least since the time of
the crusades. Jews have done it since the times of the Old
Testament. Muslims have done it from the time of the Essenes
down to the present day. No faith is blameless in saying that
they have taken up arms against other faiths, other races,
because it was God's will that they do so. Nearly everybody
would agree that from time to time, that happens over the
long course of history. I do believe that, even though Adolf
Hitler preached a perverted form of Christianity, God did not
want him to prevail. But I also know that when we take up
arms or words against one another, we must be very careful in
invoking the name of our Lord.
Abraham Lincoln once said that in the great Civil War
neither side wanted war and both sides prayed to the same
God; but one side would make war rather than stay in the
union, and the other side would accept war rather than let it
be rent asunder, so the war came. In other words, our great
president understood that the Almighty has his own designs
and all we can do is pray to know God's will.
What does that have to do with us? Martin Luther King once
said we had to be careful taking vengeance in the name of
God, because the old law of ``an eye for an eye leaves
everybody blind.''
And so today, in the spirit in which we have been truly
ministered to today, I ask you to pray for peace in the
Middle East, in Bosnia and Kosovo; in Northern Ireland, where
there are new difficulties. I ask you to pray that the young
leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea will find a way to avoid war.
I ask you to pray for a resolution of the conflicts between
India and Pakistan. I ask you to pray for the success of the
peace process in Columbia, for the agreement made by the
leaders of Ecuador and Peru, for the ongoing struggles to
make the peace process work in Guatemala.
I ask you to pray for peace. I ask you to pray for the
peacemakers; for the Prime Minister of Albania; for the Prime
Minister of Macedonia; who are here. Their region is deeply
troubled. I ask you to pray for Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinians; for the government of Israel; for Mrs. Leah
Rabin and her children, who are here, for the awful price
they have paid in the loss of Prime Minister Rabin for the
cause of peace. I ask you to pray for King Hussein, a
wonderful human being, the champion of peace who, I promise
you today, is fighting for his life mostly so he can continue
to fight for peace.
Finally, I ask you to pray for all of us, including
yourself; to pray that our purpose truly will reflect God's
will; to pray that we can all be purged of the temptation to
pretend that our willfulness is somehow equal to God's will;
to remember that all the great peacemakers in the world in
the end have to let go and walk away, like Christ, not from
apparent but from genuine grievances. If Nelson Mandela can
walk away from 28 years of oppression in a little prison
cell, we can walk away from whatever is bothering us. If Leah
Rabin and her family can continue their struggle for peace
after the Prime Minister's assassination, then we can
continue to believe in our better selves.
I remember on September the 19th, 1993, when the leaders of
Israel and the Palestinian Authority gather in Washington to
sign the peace accord, the great question arose about
whether, in front of a billion people on international
television, for the very first time, Chairman Arafat and
Prime Minister Rabin would shake hands.
Now this may seem like a little thing to you. But Yitzhak
Rabin and I were sitting in my office talking, and he said:
``You know, Mr. President, I have been fighting this man for
30 years. I have buried a lot of people. This is difficult.''
And I started to make an argument, and before I could say
anything, he said, ``But you do not make peace with your
friends.'' And so the handshake occurred that was seen around
the world.
A little while afterward, after some time passed, they came
back to Washington. And they were going to sign these
agreements about what the details were of handing over Gaza
and parts of the West Bank. On this second signing, the two
of them had to sign three copies of these huge maps, books of
maps. There were 27 maps. There were literally thousands of
markings on these maps, on each page: ``What would happen at
every little cross road? Who would be in charge? Who would do
this, who would do that, who would do the other thing?''
Right before the ceremony there was a hitch, and some
jurisdictional issue was not resolved. Everybody was going
around in a tizzy. I opened the door to the little back room,
where the Vice President and I have lunch once a week. I said
to these two people, who shook hands for the first time not
so long ago: ``Why don't you guys go in this room and work
this out? This is not a big deal.'' Thirty minutes later,
they came out. No one else was in there. They worked it out;
they signed the copies three times, 27 pieces each, each page
they were signing. And it was over.
You do not make peace with your friends, but friendship can
come, with time and trust and humility, when we do not
pretend that our willfulness is an expression of God's will.
I do not know how to put this into words. A friend of mine
last week sent me a little story out of Mother Teresa's life.
she was asked, ``When you pray, what do you say to God?'' And
she said, ``I don't say anything; I listen.'' And then she
was asked, ``Well, when you listen, what does God say to
you?'' And she said, ``He doesn't say anything either; he
listens.'' (Soft laughter.)
In another way, Saint Paul said the same thing. ``We do not
know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself
intercedes for us, with sighs too deep for words.''
So I ask you to reflect on all we have seen and heard and
felt today. I ask you to pray for peace, for the peacemakers,
and for peace within each of our hearts--in silence.
(Moment of silence.) Amen.
(Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Mr. President, for your
remarks. You have asked us to pray for the leaders of the
world and for leadership in the world. And at this time, I
would like to ask my friend, Representative Harold Ford, to
come forward to pray for world leaders.
Representative Ford. Thank you, Steve.
We pray, God, that you will help us to understand what the
book of Ephesians means
[[Page 6149]]
when it says, ``We wrestle not against flesh and blood but
against principalities and powers.'' We pray that we may heed
the ancient summons, pray as if everything depended on God
and act as if everything depended on you. Whether we worship
in the shadow of the cross, under the Star of David or the
crescent of Islam, it is in this spirit that we gather and in
this spirit that we pray. We pray that God be above us to
protect, beneath us to uphold, before us to guide and around
us to comfort. We offer these prayers in the name of one God
of all humanity. Let all of God's children say amen.
(Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Harold. One of the real
mysteries of the power of Jesus is that, Mr. President, as
you said, I may not have voted with you in the four years
that I have been in Congress, but I want you to know that I
care for you and love you. That is part of the mystery of
Jesus and the celebration that we have here this morning as
we come to pray for our leaders and for our world.
At this time I would like to ask Senator Lieberman to come
forward and lead us in our benediction. (Applause.)
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. Let us pray.
I pray, Lord, that you will open my lips, that I may
declare your praise. We love you, Lord, because we come
before you with a perfect faith that you will hear our
prayer. And we have that faith not because of our confidence
in our righteousness but because of our trust in your mercy.
Lord, thank you for waking us up this morning, restoring
our souls to our bodies, bringing us to this place, enabling
us to have this extraordinary experience. We have come along
many paths to this place, but the destination we seek is a
unified one, Lord, and it is you. You are the source of our
lives, of our principles, of our purpose. We thank you for
all that you have done for us. And as the President said so
beautifully and compellingly and truthfully, for reasons that
only impress us withour imperfection, so often our attempts
to reach you have divided us.
But today, the spirit in this room is yours; in the Hebrew,
Shekinah, the spirit of God, is here and it brings us
together in a characteristically American way, in a way that
the founders of this country understood, and they expressed
in the very first paragraph by which they declared their
independence that they held certain truths to be self-evident
and that the first of these was that the rights they were
granting us came from you; they were not the work of
philosophers or lawyers or politicians, but were the
endowment we received from you, our creator.
Lord, we thank you for the leaders who are here, the
speakers who are here who have shared their faith with us. We
ask your prayers, especially on the leaders of our country,
the President and Vice President and their devoted and gifted
wives. We pray particularly today for the President of the
United States. We thank you for the gifts you have given him
of intellect, of judgment, of compassion, of communication,
that have enabled him to be such a successful leader of our
country and have raised up so many people in this country to
a better life and have brought him to a point where people
around the world depend on him, put their hopes in him.
And Lord, may I say a special prayer at this time of
difficulty for our President, that you hear his prayers, that
you help him in the work he is doing with his family and his
clergy, that you accept his atonement in the spirit in which
David spoke to the prophet and said, ``I am distressed. Let
me put my faith not in human hands but in the hands of God,
who is full of abundant mercy.''
So, Lord, we pray that you will not only restore his soul
and lead him in the paths of righteousness for your name's
sake, but help us join with him to heal the breach, begin the
reconciliation and restore our national soul so that we may
go forward together to make this great country even greater
and better.
And I pray, Lord, too, for all the leaders from around the
world who are here. And in the spirit the president himself
invoked, I want to reach out particularly to Chairman Arafat
and Abu Mazin and Leah Rabin and her children, and to do so
in the spirit of unity that fills this room, but also in the
recollection and remembrance of the truth, that Abraham, with
whom you entered the covenant that gave birth to at least
three of the great religions that are here today, that
Abraham loved his son Ishmael as he did his son Isaac. And we
pray that you will bring that truth to Chairman Arafat and
the leaders of Israel and you will guide them in the paths of
peace so that their children and grandchildren may truly one
day not just live in peace but sit together, as Dr. King
evoked in all of us, at the table of brotherhood and
sisterhood.
So, Lord, as we leave this place, we pray that you will
take us by the hand and lead us home, but let us not leave
here the spirit of unity and purpose that has filled this
room. Let us resolve, each of us in our own way, to work to
honor your name, to bring us closer each day to the
realization of the prophet's vision, ``when the valleys will
be exalted and the hills and mountains made low, when the
rough spots will be made straight and the glory of the Lord
will fill the earth, and all flesh will see it and experience
it.'' On that day, Lord, your name will truly be one and your
children will be one.
Amen. (Applause.)
Representative Largent. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the 47th National
Prayer Breakfast.
Thank you all for being with us here this morning. Let's
leave today and live out the principles Jesus taught about
loving one another, loving our God with all our heart, soul
and mind. Thank you, and have a good morning.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MARTINS FERRY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 100TH
ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my
colleagues with great pride and satisfaction:
Whereas, The Martins Ferry Chamber of Commerce is this year
celebrating their 100th Anniversary as they have been committed to
servicing their community since its inception in 1901; and,
Whereas, with a deep and abiding concern for the well being of all
members of the community, have given generously of their time, talents
and energy to make Martins Ferry a better place to live; and,
I invite my colleagues to join with me and the citizens of Ohio in
celebration and commemoration of Martins Ferry Chamber of Commerce's
one hundred years of dedication to the people and businesses of their
community.
____________________
IN HONOR OF RITA C. SEVERIS, AUTHOR OF TRAVELLING ARTISTS IN CYPRUS
1700-1960
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Ms. Rita C. Severis, a distinguished art historian whose recently
published book, Travelling Artists in Cyprus 1700-1960, offers a
pioneer study of the island of Cyprus through the visions of more than
120 artists over three centuries.
Ms. Severis will be honored on the evening of April 24, 2001, by
Cyprus's Consulate General to the United States, Mr. Vasilis Philippou,
at a book signing presentation at the Consulate General's office in my
district in New York.
A student of philosophy and journalism at University College, London
and the London School of Journalism, Ms. Severis received her doctorate
in the History of Art from Bristol University.
Ms. Severis is an accomplished author and journalist whose previous
books include Along the Most Beautiful Path of the World, Edmund
Duthoit and Cyprus, and the co-edited In the Footsteps of Women
Peregrinations in Cyprus. Ms. Severis has contributed articles to
various periodicals on Cypriot culture and is now working on a
publication exploring an American missionary's diary in Cyprus (1834-
39).
Ms. Severis carefully selected 350 compositions, from pencil and ink
to pastel, lithographs, and watercolors and oil on paper, canvas,
board, and wood, for Travelling Artists in Cyprus 1700-1960. The
collection elegantly presents the beauty and majesty of Cyprus, with
its diverse historic periods, august monuments, and magnificent natural
landscapes.
Through this publication, Rita Severis has provided a work of great
significance in the field of art history, while contributing to the
cultural fabric of Cyprus.
Mr. Speaker, I salute Ms. Rita C. Severis for her admirable
contribution to art history and to the people of Cyprus through her
publication, Travelling Artists in Cyprus 1700-1960.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SALVATION ARMY
CAMBRIDGE, OHIO
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my
colleagues with great pride and satisfaction:
Whereas, The Cambridge Salvation Army is celebrating their
100th year of dedicated service to the grateful people of
Ohio; and,
[[Page 6150]]
Whereas, they have humbly and faithfully provided
invaluable services to those less fortunate, embodying the
true spirit of William Booth, the founder of the Salvation
Army; and
Whereas, their success has been made possible only through
the generosity of spirit that prods one to give generously to
their neighbor; and,
I invite my colleagues to join with me and the citizens of
Ohio in celebration and commemoration of the Cambridge
Salvation Army's generous gift of one hundred years of
service to the people of this city.
____________________
HONORING DR. DEANE AND SUSAN PENN
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a couple who
have been great friends to the Jewish community of Bergen County, New
Jersey, as well as personal friends of mine for many years. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Deane and Susan Penn of Alpine, New
Jersey, this year's winners of the Anti-Defamation League's Torch of
Liberty Award.
Those who are fortunate enough to know Susan and Deane know the depth
of their dedication to the community and helping others. I would like
to discuss some of their many contributions to the community.
Susan Penn brings a combination of warmth, intelligence, and drive to
every project she undertakes; and their are many. She is a Vice
President of the UJA Federation of Bergen County & North Hudson, and
holds a number of other positions within the Federation. Susan is also
deeply committed to the JCC on the Palisades, and is a member of its
Board of Trustees, She has also held leadership positions in secular
and Jewish educational institutes as well as community groups, too
numerous to mention.
Dr. Deane Penn is a highly respected physician who has served as the
President of the medical staff at Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New
Jersey. Yet his thriving medical career has never stopped him from
devoting his considerable talents to working in our community. He is a
Trustee of the Jewish Home in Rockleigh, New Jersey and is a member of
the Physician's Cabinet of the UJA Federation.
The Penns are also both avid tennis players and competitors. And they
are sharing their love of that sport, and the Jewish people, by co-
chairing the National Masters Tennis Team for the 16th World Maccabiah
Games in Israel.
People who give so much of themselves as Dr. Deane and Susan Penn do
not do so for the recognition. However, they certainly deserve to
receive it.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Dr. Deane and Susan Penn as
well as their children Jonathan and Stacey on the occasion of this well
deserved tribute from the Anti-Defamation League, and wish them health
and happiness in the years to come.
____________________
SMALL BUSINESS INTEREST CHECKING ACT OF 2001
______
speech of
HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that some
language intended to be included in the report to accompany H.R. 974,
the Small Business Interest Checking Act of 2001 (H. Rept. 107-38) was
inadvertently omitted when the report was filed. The paragraph
beginning on page 19 and ending on page 20 of that report, explaining
section 7 of the legislation, should read as follows:
This section provides that nothing in the bill is to be
construed as creating any presumption or implication that, in
the case of an escrow account maintained at a depository
institution in connection with a real estate transaction, the
absorption of expenses incidental to a normal banking
function, or the forbearance of any fee in connection with
the same, or the receipt of any benefits thereof by the
holder or the beneficiary of that escrow account, may be
treated as the payment or receipt of interest for purposes of
Public Law 93-100, the Federal Reserve Act, the Home Owner's
Loan Act, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The Committee
intends that this provision clarify that the current
treatment of such transactions under Federal law and
regulation, particularly the regulations of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve DD and Q, is unaffected by
this legislation. Current law does not treat the provision of
the services and benefits described by this section as the
payment or receipt of interest to or by the holder or
beneficiary of an escrow account, and that presumption will
remain the law upon the enactment of this bill.
This language clarifies the intent of the Committee with respect to
this provision, and corrects the omission in the printed report.
____________________
REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS IN CUBA
______
HON. JOE SCARBOROUGH
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in condemning the
repressive and totalitarian actions of the government of Cuba against
the Cuban people. I fully support H. Res. 91 and join with the sense of
the House of Representatives that the President should work toward a
policy of directly assisting the Cuban people, strengthening the forces
of change, and improving human rights within Cuba.
Since Fidel Castro led the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Cuban
government has severely repressed its citizens. Cuba barely survives as
one of the last hard-line Communist states anywhere in the world, and
unfortunately continues its abysmal human rights record to this day.
Following the Soviet Union's collapse and the decline of its role as
Soviet satellite, Cuba experienced severe economic deterioration from
1989 to 1993. Despite limited reforms implemented in 1994, economic and
social conditions there have not significantly improved. We must press
for more.
The Castro regime violates all the Cuban people's fundamental civil
and political rights, denying its citizens the freedoms we Americans
hold most sacred. In Cuba, there is no such thing as freedom of
assembly, freedom of press, freedom of speech, or freedom of religion.
In law and in practice, the Castro regime suppresses all opposition and
dissent, and controls and monitors religions institutions. In addition,
Cuba's government regularly denies workers' rights and routinely
prevents international human rights monitors from accessing the
country.
The United States' objective for Cuba is to bring democracy and
respect for human rights to our island neighbor. We must continue a
policy that keeps maximum pressure on the Cuban government until
reforms are enacted, but we must not forget the Cuban people who are
unconscionably forced to live without the most basic freedoms. Nobody
deserves to live and die at the hands of communism. Fortunately,
through our persistence and steadfast knowledge that the United States
is morally right, Mr. Speaker, I assure you ultimately freedom will
prevail.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING DAVID M. BLAGG
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my
colleagues:
Whereas, David Blagg is the recipient of the distinct honor of
promotion in the United States Army; and,
Whereas, David Blagg's dedication to the United States Armed services
is recognized in his advancement from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant; and
Whereas, David Blagg's distinguished career began three years ago as
Private First Class of Fort Bragg, N.C. and now holds a position at the
White House Communications Agency in Washington, DC; and,
Whereas, on Thursday, April 5, 2001, the Honorable David L. Hobson of
the great state of Ohio will promote Sergeant Blagg to the rank of
Staff Sergeant; and
Whereas, the citizens of the United States and the citizens of Ohio,
with a real sense of pleasure, join me in congratulating Staff Sergeant
David Blagg on this proud day of recognition.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY JUNIOR LEAGUE MOVEMENT
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
the Junior League
[[Page 6151]]
on the occasion of its 100th Anniversary. This year, nearly 200,000
Junior League women are celebrating 100 years of volunteer community
service. With a century of action for family literacy, senior citizen
care, battered women's shelters, affordable day care, AIDS education,
pregnancy prevention and multicultural awareness to their credit, the
members of Junior Leagues in 295 communities in four countries have
much to celebrate.
The Junior League reached its centennial milestone this year with a
phenomenal legacy of achievement in local communities. In 1901, Barnard
College student Mary Harriman established the Junior League ``to foster
among its members the interest in undertakings for the betterment of
the social, economic and educational conditions in the City of New
York.'' Mary Harriman's idea--that a group of women could be a powerful
force for change--has resonated throughout this century. What began
with 80 young women traveling to Manhattan's Lower East Side to
volunteer at a settlement house, has blossomed into a growing movement
of trained volunteers improving their communities through direct
service, public education, advocacy, fundraising and sheer hard work.
Individual Junior Leagues contribute mightily to their local
communities. Aspects of our social, cultural and political fabric that
we take for granted--free school lunches, children's theatre and
museums, domestic violence legislation, volunteer bureaus, quality TV
programming for children--are among the innovations led by the Junior
League.
Today, Leagues work with babies with HIV, abused children and the
homeless and serve as mentors to young women and girls. They initiate
and staff childcare centers, fund breast cancer research and protect
the environment. In short, the Junior League can be credited with
implementing change and improving conditions in almost every sector. In
recognition of decades of these sustained contributions, in 1989, the
Association of Junior Leagues International (AJLI) was presented with
the prestigious U.S. President's Volunteer Action Award.
In 1901, membership in the Junior League gave women a rare
opportunity to take a leadership role in the wider world. Today, even
with increased professional opportunities for women, the Junior League
continues to offer women a unique and powerful way to make a
difference, take risks and become community leaders. In spite of the
fact that two-thirds of the members are working women, they still
commit their valuable time to serving their communities through the
Junior League.
It is no great surprise that 46 percent of Junior League members are
``Roper Influentials''--political and social trendsetters who influence
their friends and acquaintances on an impressive array of topics such
as computers, investment ideas, health issues, politics, cars and
children.
With nearly a century of service to its credit, the Junior League is
an icon in the fabric of community life in the United States, Canada,
Mexico and Great Britain. The women leaders of the Junior League are a
powerful force, offering professional experience and vital support to
the volunteer sector. I am proud of my own membership in the Junior
League and can personally attest to the dedication of the women who
give their time and expertise to the Junior League.
The Junior Leagues' Centennial celebration will last all year long,
with a special international celebration in New York City at the
League's 2001 Annual Conference, Wednesday, April 25 through Sunday,
April 29, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate the New York Junior
League on its 100th Anniversary and I wish them many more years of
successful service to their communities.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on April 4, 2001, I was in
the First District of Rhode Island and consequently I missed six votes.
Had I been here I would of voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 79; ``Yea''
on rollcall No. 80; ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 81; ``Yea'' on rollcall No.
82; ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 83; ``No'' on rollcall No. 84.
____________________
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY DENTAL CLASS OF 1951 CELEBRATES 50TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Class
of 1951 of the Dental School of Temple University, which will hold a
reunion and celebration on may 5 and 6 in Philadelphia at Sugarloaf,
the university's conference center.
When this class, which I am proud to say includes my cousin, Dr. Ray
Chase, enrolled in 1947, a unique group of young men entered into the
annals of history. Ninety-seven percent of these students served their
country in various branches of the armed services during World War II,
and all members of the class in their combined years in the practice of
dentistry served in caring for the health of their respective
communities throughout the United States.
During their time at Temple, a distinct feeling of camaraderie was
felt among the whole class. The students came to one another's
assistance not only in the seriousness of their studies, but also in
the lighter pursuits. For two years, the class assembled its talent for
an annual vaudeville performance complete with dancers, singers,
instrumentalists and stand-up comedians. That was entirely new to the
dental school and was a resounding success.
That class spirit has continued over the fifty years since, and get-
togethers, newsletters and numerous phone calls have kept these men
close and have developed among them some of their dearest friends. I
would now like to read into the record the names of these distinguished
men:
Robert H. Alber, John R. Albert, John C. Andrews, Irving
Archinow, Robert J. Arner, Alberto E. Ayes, John A. Babett,
Matthew F. Barnett, Claude M. Basler, Jr., Bernard M. Blaum,
Joseph M. Blessing, Jr., Howard L. Britton, Jr., Elmer H.
Brown, Jr., Ralph Buterbaugh, Jr., Charles E. Carey, Edward
J. Carolan, Robert J. Clauser, Cecil F. Clement, Jr., Simon
G. Coben, Joseph Cohen, Walter M. Culbert;
Raymond F. Chase, Eugene S. Czarnecki, Anthony T.
D'Agostino, John A. D'Alessandro, Thomas L. Davis, Hugh V.
Day, Melvin Denholtz, Stanley B. Dietz, Joseph E. Donnelly,
Louis L. Dublin, John H. Eck, Arthur R. Erlacher, Stephen R.
Falken, Theodore Feldman, Edward F. Flood, David E. Fox,
Irvin R. Friedman, Richard B. Funk, Leonard F. Giordano,
William L. Glickman, Fred Goldman, Spurgeon T. Gotwalt, John
D.G. Grant;
Barton H. Greenberg, Shelly M. Greene, Lewis G. Gunn,
William C. Haberstroh, Joseph F. Hacker, Jr., Robert W.
Hemperly, Dallas C. Hess, Garth N. Huckins, Theodore F.
Jarvis, Irving Kanefsky, Chester L. Karwanski, William
Kasler, Eugene E. Katz, Frank J. Keating, Martin H. Kiefer,
David Klebanoff, Milton Klempart, William J. Klink, Bertnard
Kreshtool, Aaron Kuby, Theodore Kurta, Frank H. Laedlein,
Albert V. LaRocca, Leroy P. Leahy, Charles J. Lentz, Joel G.
Lippe, Marshall K. Ludwig, John H. McCutcheon, Walter E.
Magann;
Herman D. Marggraff, C. Robert Martin, Paul D. Mattern,
Perry M. Matz, Jack B. Metzger, Harry Mildvan, Frederick J.
Monaghan, Sylvan Morein, Robert D. Moyer, Charles A. Nagle,
Jr., John H. Nelson, Samuel S. Novich, Edward J. O'Donnell,
Sidney B. Parmet, Samuel J. Paul, Daniel E. Pfeil, Richard
Pitel, Erwin P. Plotnick, Irwin J. Plotnick, Arthur J.
Ravage, Edward F. Reichert, Richard E. Reut, George
Richterman, Charles W. Riley, Carmen Riviello, Vincent J.
Roach, Homer G. Robinson, Richard A. Ross, John A. Rusch,
Baxter B. Sapp, Jr.;
Bernard Sarnow, Harry L. Schiff, Burton Schwartz, Samuel J.
Schwartz, Lambert Seltzer, George M. Shopp, Daniel H. Shuck,
Joseph P. Skellchock, H. Norris Smith, Thomas J. Smith,
Joseph A. Solecki, Jr., Stephen S. Soltis, Gilbert A.
Stegelske, Frank D. Summers, Gerald O. Sveen, Earl R. Thomas,
Jr., David N. Thompson, James A. Turner, Edward A. Walinchus,
John W. Weaver, William C.V. Wells, Jr., Fritz D. Yealy,
Donald W. Zahnke, John E. Zerbe, and Louis Zislis.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call to the attention of the House of
Representatives the 50th anniversary of the Class of 1951 of the Dental
School of Temple University, and I wish them all the best.
____________________
DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT OF 2001
______
speech of
HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose today's bill, which is a
clumsy attempt to implement a bad idea. Complete repeal of the estate
tax--a tax that by 2005 will affect only the wealthiest 1% of all
decedents in the
[[Page 6152]]
United States--is a bad idea. It marks a major step away from tax
fairness, and greatly undermines our ability to address pressing
federal needs. The clumsiness comes in the Republicans' attempt to hide
the true costs of estate tax repeal, as well as their efforts to limit
these costs through a complicated capital gains tax scheme.
As a result, not only do those who believe in tax fairness and fiscal
responsibility have good reason to strongly oppose this bill, but even
those who believe in estate tax repeal have grounds to reject this
plan. We can make the estate tax more fair by immediately raising the
exclusion limits on estates. But to repeal the tax altogether would be
tremendously unfair to the 99% of Americans who will shoulder the
costs.
A Better Way To Reform the Estate Tax
As a small business advocate, I have long supported proposals to
raise the exclusion limits on estates subject to taxation. A very small
number of family businesses and farms (just 4% of estate tax revenues
come from small businesses, and just \1/4\ of 1% come from family
farms) currently face onerous tax burdens as a result of the estate
tax. While their numbers are small, these ``middle class'' family
businesses and farms deserve relief from the estate tax.
And in fact, we have already made considerable progress in this
effort: under current law, only the wealthiest 1% of estates will face
any tax whatsoever by 2005. Under the Democratic alternative to today's
bill, just 0.5% of all decedents would be subject to the tax. This 0.5%
of estates would be composed exclusively of the very, very wealthy.
Estate Tax Repeal Is Unfair
When fully implemented, the Republican plan to repeal the estate tax
would provide $662 billion of tax relief to the wealthiest 1% of
Americans. By any measure, that's a lot of money. But to put it in some
perspective, consider how this tax cut compares to some of the
Administration's spending priorities. The President has made education
funding his to budget priority, yet provides only $41 billion in new
funding over the next decade for education programs--and even that
amount is inflated (unspecified targeted cuts in some education
programs will reduce this gross figure). At the same time, the
President has called for a new prescription drug benefit for seniors,
but has allocated just $110 billion over ten years for it, far below
any reasonable estimate of the program's true cost. In both cases, the
President has devoted far more lip service than dollars to pressing
national needs. Importantly, both priorities could be fully funded with
the revenues lost to estate tax repeal.
It is rarely popular to promote the virtues of any tax. Nonetheless,
that is just what some of the nation's wealthiest individuals
effectively did recently in publicly opposing estate tax repeal. The
likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros worry about the
effects of repeal, arguing that the repeal will discourage and
virtually eliminate substantial amounts of charitable giving, an will
exacerbate the concentration of our nation's wealth in the hands of
just a few families.
Concern about the concentration of wealth is particularly appropriate
in recent years. Over the past decade, after-tax income for the
wealthiest 1% of Americans grew by a stunning 40%, while after-tax
income gains for the bottom 90% averaged just 5%. In the face of this
growing income disparity, we are about to further advantage the
wealthiest 1% with a $660 billion estate tax bonus. Today's bill is by
far the most unfair and regressive element of the aggregate Republican
tax package. but it is important to note that 40% of American
families--those earning less than $27,000--will receive virtually no
benefit at all from any of the Republican tax cuts, whether rate
reductions, so-called marriage penalty relief, or expansion of the
child tax credit.
These families are excluded from the Republican plan, not because the
don't pay any taxes; in fact, all of them pay substantial federal taxes
through the payroll tax, and for many, these taxes are onerous. These
taxpaying families are excluded from the Republican's tax relief simply
because the Republicans chose to aware the lion's share of tax relief
to the very wealth. Yet, the 40% of families excluded from the
Republican plan are the same taxpayers whose incomes have barely
registered a gain in the midst of a decade-long economic expansion.
Again, they--40% of all American families, those at the bottom--get
nothing.
A Clumsy Attempt To Limit Revenue Losses
The Republicans faced a funding dilemma in crafting this
legislation--they have already promised too much tax relief to wealthy
Americans in other tax bills and have run out of room in their own
budget to pay for estate tax repeal. As a result, they have resorted to
a scheme that hides the true costs of repeal, while also attempting to
recover some of the revenue losses through new capital gains taxes.
The drafters of this bill have back loaded its costs so that the true
cost of repeal falls outside the 10-year budgetary window. They
accomplish this by phasing in repeal at a snail's pace through 2011,
and then quickly implementing complete repeal in the following year. As
a result, the cost of this bill through 2011 is $193 billion; yet, if
it were implemented immediately, the cost would skyrocket to $662
billion. Due to backloading, the same family businesses and farms that
would benefit almost immediately from the Democratic plan to raise
estate exclusion limits would continue to pay substantial estate taxes
for the next ten years under the Republican plan.
But even cost backloading was not enough to limit the 10-year revenue
losses from the Republican bill. In order to find more cost savings,
the bill's drafters decided to shift the capital gains treatment of
taxable estates from a ``stepped up'' basis to a ``carryover'' basis.
Under current law, heirs are subject to capital gains taxes on estate
assets sold based on the value of these assets when they were
transferred from the decedent (``stepped up'' basis). Under this bill,
heirs would be subject to capital gains taxes based on the value of
these assets when they were purchased by the decedent (``carryover''
basis). The fatal flaw of this change lies in its complexity. In 1976,
Congress passed legislation shifting from a stepped up basis to a
carryover basis on estate assets, but the plan was abandoned before it
could take effect. Congress repealed the 1976 tax change in 1980 after
realizing that the change was unworkable and would impose an
unacceptably large administrative burden on estate planners, heirs, and
the Treasury Department.
There is a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They should
adopt the Democratic alternative, which immediately raises the
exclusion for estates to $2 million ($4 million per couple). By 2010,
these exclusions would rise to $2.5 million ($5 million per couple).
Such changes would appropriately target the estate tax to very wealthy
estates and would do so almost immediately, not ten years from now.
Raising exclusion limits would retain the core progressivity of our tax
code while limiting revenue losses.
____________________
SALUTING MT. WHITNEY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
______
HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
honor three students, Zach Vanderham, Jessica Parks, and Darren Mann,
who are seniors at Mt. Whitney High School in Visalia, California in my
district. These three young people have developed an anti-smoking
program aimed at their peers that I hope will serve as a model for
other schools throughout the country. They have created a CD ROM titled
``Teens Kick Ash'' that explains the dangers of smoking in a manner to
which other young people can relate and understand.
As part of a competition organized by a national student marketing
organization, Zach, Jessica, and Darren developed this CD in order to
dissuade their fellow students from taking up this destructive,
dangerous habit. Their project has proven so effective that the CD's
have been distributed to dozens of other schools in the Visalia Unified
School District, which have incorporated the project into their
curriculum. Mr. Speaker, all Americans now know the dangers that
smoking presents, and realize that we must do more to prevent our young
people from starting this destructive habit. I am very pleased that
these three students from Tulare County, California have had the good
sense and initiative to educate their peers on smoking's dangers and to
do their part to keep the next generation of Tulare County citizens
from starting to smoke.
I have an article from the Visalia Times Delta newspaper that I ask
unanimous consent be included in the Record in its entirety.
Students Describe Smoking Dangers
La Joya shows project created by three Mt. Whitney DECA students
(By Melinda Morales)
Twenty three seventh-grade students sat in the dark in Dave
Rodgers' health class at La Joya Middle School Tuesday,
waiting not for the lights to come on but for the show to
begin.
They would be the first group of students to view a CD-ROM
production called ``Anti Tobacco Education 2000, Teens Kick
Ash,'' created by three Mt. Whitney High School students.
The students, members of DECA--an association of marketing
students--had taken on
[[Page 6153]]
the job of creating the CD-ROM as part of a marketing project
for the annual DECA competition in Jan Jose next month. They
wanted to see how other students would react to what they
saw.
``We felt smoking was a big problem in our community and we
wanted to produce a CD about it,'' said Zach Vanderham, a
senior and DECA member. ``They seemed to really enjoy it.''
What captivated the students were the video vignettes,
produced by drama students at Mt. Whitney, interspersed
throughout the disc. One that got a reaction from the class
showed students coughing and choking as they smoked for the
first time and asked why anyone would want to continue
smoking after that kind of reaction.
The CD-ROM presentation is the first of its kind, produced
by students in the Visalia Unified School District. Rodgers,
a health education specialist, said getting information to
students in the middle schools is a priority for him.
``Any opportunity I get to have someone come in from the
outside and talk to my students about drugs and the dangers
they present, I jump on it,'' he said. When they get to high
school, sometimes it's too late.''
He said the combined video and audio presentation in CD
form, organized format and worksheet for the lesson are easy
to use.
``We try to incorporate technology as much as possible,''
Rodgers said. ``And kids like visuals.''
Beatrice Mejia, 12, said the facts and grim photos on the
effects of chewing tobacco made an impression on her.
``I didn't know that the tobacco could do so much damage,''
she said.
The project was the brainchild of Mt. Whitney DECA adviser
Stephen Rogers, who worked with the Tulare County Health and
Human Services Agency to get the money for the project.
``We got a $5,000 grant to buy the equipment for the
project,'' Rogers said. He made arrangements with a
production company in Los Angeles to show his students how to
use the equipment and create their own story. Then he let
them go.
``They really did it all themselves,'' he said. The grant
enabled them to buy the equipment and produce 350 copies of
the disc that will be used in schools throughout the
district.
The grant came from the state's Tobacco Use Prevention
Education fund which is to be used strictly for educating
kids about the dangers of tobacco. Lucinda Mejdell-Awbrey,
coordinator of student support services for health and human
services, said the tobacco education money was used last year
to put on health fairs in the middle schools in the district.
``The money comes from the tax on tobacco sales, and the
amounts have been dropping each year because tobacco sales
are going down,'' Mejdell-Awbrey said. Most of the money is
used to purchase educational materials for health teachers of
fourth-through eighth grades.
Jessica Parks, a junior, helped Vanderham lead the
presentation to the class, guided the students through the
worksheets and answered questions. Darren Mann, senior,
operated the computer and navigated the course for Parks and
Vanderham. He also did much of the hands-on computer work for
the project.
The three students, who began working on the project in
November, will now complete the written requirements for the
presentation and submit it for the competition in March.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL ON 45 YEARS OF SERVING OUR
COMMUNITY
______
HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 28, 2001 the Milwaukee
community will gather to celebrate the 45th Anniversary of St. Francis
Hospital.
The blessed Felician Sisters opened the doors to this beautiful new
facility in 1956, and with the leadership of its first administrator,
Sister Mary Liliose, started to minister quality and compassionate
health care to those in need.
In the years that have followed, St. Francis Hospital has grown and
matured, combining a patient-centered, healing ministry with the latest
in advanced technology. Today, the facility offers an array of
services, specializing in areas such as laser/laparoscopic surgery,
orthopedics, sports medicine and women's health services. In addition,
this 260 bed, general acute care hospital is internationally recognized
for its outstanding cardiac care programs.
Now a St. Francis Hospital Center for Cancer Care is currently being
constructed in Franklin, Wisconsin, to provide comprehensive services
to cancer patients throughout southeastern Wisconsin. The facility has
been designed with input from cancer survivors and will provide a
healing environment to attend to the unique medical and spiritual needs
of cancer patients and their families.
A large part of what makes St. Francis Hospital such a special place
is its strong commitment to building a healthier community. From its
free health care screenings for seniors to its Angel of Hope Clinic
located in a homeless shelter on Milwaukee's south side, the staff of
St. Francis consistently serves with great care and compassion.
On behalf of all the people whose lives have been touched by the
Felician Sisters and the physicians, nurses and support staff at St.
Francis Hospital, thank you for 45 years of outstanding care to the
community, and God's blessings for many more years of exceptional
service to the people of Wisconsin.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JUAN NEKAI BABAUTA AND HIS WORK WITH THE CLOSE UP
FOUNDATION
______
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
of guam
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to
recognize my friend Juan Nekai Babauta, the Resident Representative to
the United States from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI), for his efforts on behalf of the Close Up Foundation. I
particularly commend Mr. Babauta for his continued commitment to the
issue of civic education for young people and especially for his
diligent work with the Close Up Foundation, the nation's largest
nonprofit, nonpartisan citizenship education organization.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, the CNMI became a
territory of the United States and an American commonwealth in 1976.
Since then the citizens of the CNMI, with whom my constituency, the
people of Guam, share indigenous identity and Chamorro heritage, have
elected a Resident Representative to serve them in the Nation's
capital. To date the CNMI is the only American jurisdiction that has
not been afforded representation in Congress, thus I often feel
compelled to offer remarks here in the House for Guam's Pacific
neighbors.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of the islands of Oceania face
daunting challenges in the area of economic stability and growth. Their
relatively limited size, small population and extended distance from
major markets, makes building a strong and sustainable economy among
the most difficult tasks facing contemporary government. With the
competing needs of various sectors of society, the government is forced
to make tough choices. Roads must be maintained and airports must be
modernized, hospitals must be improved and schools must be expanded and
repaired, health care must be available to all and social safety nets
must be in place for the neediest citizens. Pressing demands on an
island's resources must be balanced with an eye towards meeting the
needs of the day, while not ignoring future needs. Public servants like
Juan Nekai Babauta make invaluable contributions to the extremely
difficult balancing act between available resources and societal needs.
All of the islands of the Pacific are also confronting numerous
problems when it comes to their youth. In CNMI, as is also the case in
Guam, the government must find ways to combat apathy and cynicism among
their young people. There is a constant concern with ensuring that
young people will enter adulthood committed to being active,
contributing citizens of their communities. For public servants like
Juan Nekai Babauta, there is a recognition that preparing the next
generation of leaders is a priority for the future welfare of the
islands. Throughout his years of service, Mr. Babauta has been a
champion for education and a strong advocate for young people. As the
Resident Representative for CNMI, he has aggressively and successfully
lobbied this Congress to provide $3 million in federal funds for an
endowment at the Northern Marianas College. He also achieved success in
his attempt to open admission to our U.S. service academies to CNMI
students. These and other pursuits demonstrate Mr. Babauta's
effectiveness and his work on behalf of his constituency.
Throughout his career, Mr. Babauta has recognized that preparing the
next generation of leaders must include preparation through a focus on
civic education. His commitment to this end is evidenced through his
unwavering support of the Close Up Foundation's program in the Pacific
Islands.
Mr. Speaker, as you and my other colleagues in the House know well,
the Close Up Foundation operates one of the most successful and
innovative civic education programs in the country. Most of us have had
the privilege
[[Page 6154]]
of meeting students who are in Washington for an intensive course of
study about the federal government. Annually, I personally meet with
students and teachers from Guam who are participants in Close Up's
civic education program that is specially designed for Pacific Islands
students and educators. As an educator by profession, I have been
personally impressed with Close Up's Island-based activities, including
their development of island-specific curricular materials, teacher
training seminars and programs related to teaching young people about
the merits of community service.
Mr. Babauta, when back home in Rota and Saipan has encouraged
students and teachers to participate in the program. He has used his
position and contacts to assist educators and schools to raise funds
that would allow students to participate in the Close Up program,
including taking advantage of local media outlets to promote the
program. Mr. Babauta even assists students and teachers with the
process for obtaining passports and other travel documents that will
allow them to travel to Washington for the Close Up program. All of
these activities speak to his deep belief in the importance of civic
education to CNMI students, including the need for them to explore the
historic ties between the United States and the Pacific Islands.
Equally important, Mr. Babauta's support for the Close Up program
signals his conviction that for the CNMI and other Pacific Islands to
secure a future of engaged citizenry committed to democratic
government, it is important that they be educated in how democracy is
reliant upon the involvement and input of the people.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Mr. Babauta for his work
with Close Up Pacific Islands program. His efforts over the years
demonstrate his commitment to the welfare of the young people of the
Pacific, and his conviction that educating young people about
democracy, the importance of community service, and the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship is indispensable for the future of the
CNMI and other Pacific Islands.
____________________
HONORING MRS. GERRY GEIFMAN, RECIPIENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL BONDS'
JERUSALEM MEDAL
______
HON. LANE EVANS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate one of my
constituents, Mrs. Gerry Geifman, who will be honored tonight by the
State of Israel Bonds at the Quad City Israel Independence Dinner.
At the dinner, Mrs. Geifman will receive the Jerusalem Medal. The
award is given to those who have a distinguished history of efforts on
behalf of Israel, the Jewish people and the community.
Considering her deep involvement in issues involving the Quad Cities
and the local Jewish community, it is easy to see why she is being so
honored. Her charitable works are numerous including: serving as past
president of Hadassah, the Tri-City Jewish Center Sisterhood, and B'nai
B'rith. She also serves on the boards of the Jewish Federation, Tri-
City Jewish center, and the Rock Island YWCA. She has also dedicated
much of her time to the Davenport Museum of Art, Friends of Art, the
Geifman Endowment Sponsorship of Augustana College, Audubon School,
Washington Junior High School, Rock Island High school PTA among
others.
It is unfortunate that Mrs. Geifman's late husband is not alive to
see her receive this important honor. The charitable and volunteer work
they performed together over the years was an inspiration to our
community. Her continued efforts have served as a true example of the
value of leadership and the spirit of volunteer work.
Again, I commend her for her work and this well-deserved recognition
of years of service to our local Jewish community and the Quad Cities.
____________________
SENSE OF CONGRESS RESOLUTION
______
HON. CLIFF STEARNS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Sense of
Congress resolution that the Constitution of the United States allows
for a prohibition against acts of desecration of the flag of the United
States.
I do so because I believe that nothing could be more important to
most Americans than to preserve and honor our Nation's flag.
In the past, those who have been prosecuted for flag burning have not
been prosecuted for what they said, but for the method they chose to
express themselves. Justice Stevens wrote that the government has a
legitimate interest in preserving the flag, similar to the government's
interest in protecting the Lincoln Memorial from acts of vandalism.
Some say our flag is just a piece of cloth. Well, that's like saying
America is just a piece of land, that Florida's just another state. No,
there's something special about it. It's our flag. It represents us--
you, me, our families, our friends, our heritage and our future. It
represents our memories and our dreams.
To desecrate the American flag is to desecrate the memory of the
thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that
banner flying, intact. It is to desecrate everything this country
stands for.
Yes, Congress must be extremely careful when dealing with proposals
that would amend the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
American citizens must have the opportunity to voice discontent,
however, that freedom of expression is not absolute.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens claims that the act of flag-
burning has nothing to do with disagreeable ideas, but rather involves
conduct that diminishes the value of an important national asset. The
act of flag-burning is meant to provoke and arouse, not to reason.
Flag-burning is simply an act of cultural and patriotic destruction.
My Sense of Congress resolution reaffirms that Congress should have
the power, but doesn't have the power until the constitutional
amendment is ratified by the states.
____________________
ON THE DELEGATION OF U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS TO SUDAN MARCH 24-APRIL 6
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you the findings of the
U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference who recently led a delegation to the
country of Sudan.
Since 1983, the government of Sudan has been waging a brutal war
against factions in the south who are fighting for self determination
and religious freedom. More people have died in Sudan than in Kosovo,
Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia combined. Most of the dead are civilians--
women and children--who died from starvation and disease. Over 2
million people have died. The Committee on Conscience of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum has issued a genocide warning for
Sudan.
Because of the large-scale death and destruction, the findings
arising from the U.S. Catholic Bishops' delegation is noteworthy and
timely.
The dire situation in Sudan calls for a high profile, high level
special envoy to bring peace and to stop the atrocities. It is my
fervent hope that the Bush administration will appoint such an envoy
without delay.
DELEGATION OF U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS TO SUDAN--MARCH 24-APRIL 6
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the trip were three-fold: to show
solidarity with the Catholic Church in Sudan; to conduct a
fact-finding mission to the North and South; and to increase
efforts toward advocacy in the U.S. to help promote a just
and lasting peace.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The delegation was comprised of three bishops: Bishop John
Ricard, Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee, president and
chairman of the board of Catholic Relief Services, and member
of the Committee on International Policy; Bishop Nicolas
DiMarzio, Bishop of Camden, New Jersey and chairman of the
Committee on Refugees and Migration; Bishop Edward Braxton,
Bishop of Lake Charles, Louisiana and member of the Committee
on International Policy; Staff from Catholic Relief services
and the United States Catholic Conference committees on
Migration and Refugees and International Policy.
The delegation went to: Khartoum, and its outlying areas;
Rumbeck; Narus; Nimule; Yambio; and Kauda in the Nuba
Mountains.
During the visit, the delegation met with: Northern and
Southern leaders of the Catholic church and the New Sudan
Council of Churches; Government ministers in Khartoum
including the first vice-president, and the former Minister
of State, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the
State Minister of Engineering, and the Minister of Religious
Affairs; SPLM/A officials, including governors, military
commanders and other senior officials. The delegation met
with other civil society groups in both North and South.
The Bishops raised issues of: peace; religious freedom;
human rights; plight of displaced persons and refugees;
slavery and abduction; bombing and terrorization of civilian
populations.
[[Page 6155]]
It is important for this delegation to state that we are
not specialists of Sudanese culture, politics, and other
aspects of social life. We speak from the perspective of a
Church deeply concerned with the plight of all Sudanese,
those living in the North, South, the contested areas, and
those forced to flee their country and seek asylum in
neighboring states or elsewhere.
MAJOR FINDINGS
1. Conflict and persecution in Sudan are a direct result of
a systematic campaign of Islamization and Arabization by
those who hold political and economic power in Khartoum.
2. Religious persecution, the systematic denial of basic
religious freedom, and a program of Islamization continue to
characterize the approach of the Government in Khartoum
towards those who do not profess a particular version of
Islam.
3. Cultural persecution, the systematic undermining of the
dignity of non-Arab Sudanese citizens, and the relegation of
people to a status of inferiority and subservience continue
to shape social institutions and fundamental attitudes of
people living in northern Sudan, for which government is
responsible.
4. The bombing of civilian targets, the systematic use of
Antonov bombers to terrorize populations in contested areas,
and other tactics employed to drive people from oil-rich
regions are part of the military strategy of the government
in Khartoum.
For example: There was a bombing April 16 of Kauda that
narrowly missed hitting the plane carrying Bishop Macram Max,
Bishop of Diocese of El-Obeid.
And then only yesterday, April 23, Antonov bombers
inflicted serious damage on a Catholic school in Narus.
5. Oil exploration, development and sales contribute to an
expansion of the war, deepen the plight of the peoples of
southern Sudan and other contested areas, harden the resolve
of the government in Khartoum to seek a military solution to
the conflict, and further widen the gap between the
government and those contesting its practices and legitimacy,
6. The government in Khartoum must be called to
accountability for its promotion, directly or indirectly, of
the intolerable practice of slavery and other gross
violations of human rights, and the abduction of Southern
children living in and around Khartoum and their forced
induction into Koranic schools. The SPLM/A must also cease
the practice of the abduction and conscription of minors and
other practices that violate human rights.
7. Divisions among the various ethnic groups in the South,
coupled with the lack of political support by the leadership
of the SPLM/A for various initiatives seeking to reconcile
and unite people, compromise the peace process, further
destabilize a fragile social infrastructure and undermine
advances in development in the region.
8. Internally displaced persons living in the North and the
South live in desperate conditions with little hope for
immediate improvement; Sudanese refugees in neighboring
countries languish in refugee camps, with few prospects for
their future. Fatigue on the part of the international
community is due to the protracted nature of the conflict and
the inability to improve prospects for a better life for the
displaced, We are encouraged by the special attention that
dedicated groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have been able to
bring to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and the increased
attention being given by the U.S. Congress and Media.
9. Increasing threats of famine in western Sudan, northern
Bahr el Ghazal and elsewhere, further complicated by the
political manipulation of humanitarian access by the
Government in Khartoum and the expropriation of large amounts
of humanitarian assistance by the SPLA, exacerbate human
suffering and contribute to the loss of innocent lives.
10. There is urgent need for investment in development in
southern Sudan, particularly for education and technical
training, and for the formation of individuals and
communities in the basic principles of responsible governance
and civil administration.
Policy Recommendations
1. The war in Sudan must be brought to an immediate and
just end. The full and active engagement of the U.S.
government could provide the necessary impetus to all parties
to the conflict to negotiate an immediate and verifiable
cessation of hostilities, monitored by the United Nations or
another international body. It is particularly crucial that
there be an immediate end to the bombing of civilian targets
and a halt to the expulsion of civilian populations from
their homelands.
2. We support the Sudanese Bishops and others in calling
for the U.S. to play a central role in leading a new,
multilateral effort involving the member states of IGAD,
those of the IGAD Partner's Forum, and the international
community to push all parties to the conflict to a negotiated
peace, based on the Declaration of Principles to which the
two main parties are signatories.
3. We support the call for the President of the United
States should name a high-level special envoy to Sudan with a
clear mandate and direct access to the President and the
Secretary of State.
4. As we give attention to the terrible situation in the
South, the U.S. government and the international community
must also address serious human rights violations in the
North, particularly: Religious persecution and denial of
religious freedom; cultural persecution; economic exclusion;
denial of the right of free expression, free association and
other fundamental rights; the plight of more than 2 million
internally displaced in the North.
5. The U.S. government and the international community
should exert pressure upon corporations and governments
involved in the exploration, extraction, production and sale
of Sudanese oil to take steps to ensure that their activities
do not contribute to the escalation of the war, the deepening
of human suffering, the continued displacement of peoples
from their homelands and ways of life, and urge the oil
industy to take an active role in helping to promote a just
and lasting peace.
6. The United States and the international commnunity
should increase humanitarian relief, specifically to
internally displaced persons, press for greater access to
humanitarian relief in contested areas, based on the
Beneficiaries Protocol signed by the two main parties to the
conflict, and increase development assistance to the South
for education, health and capacity building of civil
institutions.
7. The U.S. government and the international community must
press the Government in Khartoum to bring the practice of
slavery to an immediate end and secure the release and return
of all slaves to their families and communities. The
international community also must use its influence to press
all parties to the conflict to end the abduction of minors
and their induction into Koranic schools in the North, or
into military service in both the North and South and provide
for their immediate and safe return to their families and
communities.
____________________
HONORING JOY KURLAND
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who
has dedicated her life to fostering understanding and mutual respect
among various racial, ethnic, and religious groups in an effort to
promote our common humanity. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my good
friend, Joy Kurland of Parsippany, New Jersey, this year's winner of
the Anti-Defamation League's Distinguished Community Service Award.
As the Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of the UJA
Federation of Bergen County and North Hudson since 1990, Joy has played
a vital role in strengthening Judaism throughout New Jersey. Much of
her work has been to foster understanding and respect among the many
racial, ethnic and religious groups that form the tapestry of our
community.
I was privileged to work with Joy both as a member of the Jewish
Community Relations Council as well as the Interfaith Brotherhood
Sisterhood Committee. It was truly a pleasure to work with someone who
is as dedicated as Joy, and I was always impressed by her hard work,
common sense, dedication, and professionalism.
Joy is also a forward-thinking person who never loses sight of the
future: our young people. She is always working with young people and
encouraging them to increase their participation in the Jewish
community. She has supervised the campus youth programs for Jewish
Student Services of MetroWest at Montclair State University, Drew
University and Fairleigh Dickinson University.
People who give so much of themselves, as Joy Kurland, do not do so
for the recognition. However, she certainly deserves to receive it.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Joy Kurland as well as her
husband Leon and her daughter Meredith, who is a social worker, on the
occasion of this well deserved tribute from the Anti-Defamation League,
and wish them health and happiness in the years to come.
____________________
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS RIGHTS
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the record a story of two young
women whose voices we heard. Last Thursday, ``Ms. A'' and ``Ms. B''
traveled from Bangladesh to our nation's Capital to tell their story.
The two women are the survivors of the horrendous fire that occurred in
the Chowdhury Knitwear factory in Bangladesh on November 25, 2000.
[[Page 6156]]
Sadly, their story echoes the events of the 1911 fire that occurred
at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City where 146 young
garment workers were killed.
The women traveled to the United States to tell their compelling
story of the dangerous working conditions under which they are forced
to work. Fifty-one of their co-workers were killed in the fire that
blazed through the factory. Many of the workers were electrocuted,
suffocated, or trampled to death, due to the doors of the factory being
locked that evening by the owners to keep union organizers out. Through
timid voices they explained that they are forced to work long hours,
and had not received a raise in two years. They spoke of their fear for
their jobs when they returned home because of their trip to the United
States. However, they stated that they traveled to the United States to
tell their story in hope of making a difference for the workers in the
Chowdhury factory in Bangladesh and workers around the world.
In Bangladesh nearly 80% of garment workers do not earn the legal
monthly minimum wage of $17. The average workday is 12-14 hours, many
times for as little as 5 cents an hour. The workers are denied the
right to organize and are subjected to deplorable working conditions.
``Ms. A'' and ``Ms. B'' sew for first-world clients at the Chowdhury
Knitwear Factory. The factory produces towels and bedding products that
are shipped to the European Union. However, the owner of the factory
owns and operates another factory across the street that makes products
that are shipped to the United States.
Unfortunately, there are many factory workers who can tell stories
such as ``Ms. A'' and ``Ms. B's''. There are factories like the
Chowdhury Knitwear factory in Bangladesh all over the world. In the
past decade hundreds of workers have been killed in factory fires
throughout Asia, in Thailand, and in China. We have a responsibility to
impel companies in countries such as Bangladesh to provide their
workers with safe conditions and the right to organize, and
collectively bargain. America should not allow the import of goods from
nations that allow the exploitation of their own workers.
As a member of the International Workers Right Caucus, I strongly
urge the United States Congress, and all nations to ratify the
International Labor Organization Standards providing individuals abroad
basic worker rights.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to the record the story of these women and
their associates because I am their voice, the voice that can be heard
by the American public, and by the U.S. government.
It is because of the conditions that exist at the Chowdhury Knitwear
factory in Bangladesh that I will continue to fight for labor rights
both home and abroad.
____________________
MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO'S MARKETPLACE WINS PEABODY AWARD
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of, and to
honor Minnesota Public Radio's highly regarded business and financial
news program Marketplace \TM\, for their receipt of a prestigious
Peabody Award for 2000. The George Foster Peabody Awards were
established in 1940 to recognize distinguished achievement and
meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations,
producing organizations, cable television organizations and
individuals. Marketplace will be honored during a May 21st awards
ceremony in New York to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the George
Foster Peabody Awards.
Marketplace is public radio's only national program about business,
the global economy and finance. It was the first, and is still the
only, daily national business show originating from the West Coast. Its
location in Los Angeles has provided Marketplace easier access to the
Pacific Rim and has encouraged the staff to develop their own voice,
one not overwhelmed by the traditionally Eastern-dominated media. With
eight domestic bureaus (Boston, Ann Arbor/Detroit, Cleveland, New York,
Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco and Washington, DC) and two
international bureaus (London and Tokyo), Marketplace is a truly global
program using business and economics as its twin lenses to better view
and understand the world. It distinguishes itself from general news
programming by taking a broader view of business and exploring business
and finance issues on a deeper more human, more engaging level.
The program premiered in January 1989 from Long Beach, California.
Over the years, it has been described as well informed, hip,
irreverent, and the business show for the rest of us. Last year,
Minnesota Public Radio, which is based in my home district of Saint
Paul, Minnesota, acquired Marketplace from the University of Southern
California. This added one more strong program to Minnesota Public
Radio's already impressive resume of celebrated shows including A
Prairie Home Companion and Saint Paul Sunday. Marketplace's future
looks as bright as its past with Minnesota Public Radio building a
state-of-the-art digital production center in downtown Los Angeles that
will serve at the program's newest home.
Marketplace was created by Jim Russell, an award-winning journalist
and a former executive producer of All Things Considered, who has more
than thirty years of broadcasting experience under his belt. In 1988,
he envisioned a public radio business program that sounded smart,
literate and witty; one that could appeal to an audience of non
business types. Today, Marketplace is heard on more than 300 public
radio stations across the United States with a national audience of
nearly 4 million weekly listeners.
The executive producer of Marketplace is J.J. Yore, who has been a
reporter, editor and broadcast producer for nearly twenty years. As
executive producer, he is the one responsible for setting the program's
overall editorial direction and tone, which the Peabody Awards
Committee described as, ``sophisticated, creative and accessible.''
David Brancaccio has been the show's senior host since 1993. He is a
former foreign correspondent and broadcast reporter with a knack for
telling a good story. His style has been described as lively and
engaging. Before taking his current position with Marketplace, he
served as the show's London bureau chief for three years. His
international reporting experience and considerable travel overseas add
to Marketplace's global perspective on business-related news.
Praise for Marketplace abounds. Early in its history, it was named
``best business program'' in the U.S. by the prestigious Columbia
Journalism Review. More recently, Marketplace received the 1997 Loeb
Award in the radio category, the 1997 Clarion Award for ``Regular
News'' and in January 1998, the highly coveted duPont-Columbia Award
for ``Excellence in Overall Show.'' In 2000, Marketplace's Japan Bureau
won the Overseas Press Club's Best Business Reporting in Broadcast
Media Award. According to Washingtonian Magazine, Marketplace is in the
top four most-listened-to programs by business leaders. The Station
Resource Group reported that, according to industry leaders,
Marketplace is one of five ``must-have'' programs for public radio
stations.
Marketplace's most recent honor, the Peabody Award, is one of the
most competitive in the fields of broadcasting and cable. For the year
2000, Marketplace was one of only 34 award winners chosen from nearly
1,100 entries. The Peabody Award differs from other broadcast and cable
awards because it is given solely on the basis of merit, rather than
within designated categories. Judging is done by a fifteen-person
national advisory board whose members include TV critics, broadcast and
cable industry executives, scholars, and experts in culture and fine
arts. Dr. Louise Benjamin, Interim Director of the Peabody Awards,
said, ``The Peabody Board chose Marketplace because the program offers
listeners a refreshing, perceptive account of the day's international
economic news. It also gives its audience insight into how the global
economy affects their communities and their lives.''
I congratulate Marketplace on their notable achievement as a 2000
recipient of the George Foster Peabody Award. The Peabody and Minnesota
Public Radio's Marketplace belong together as they both represent the
qualities we, here in the U.S. House of Representatives, applaud:
excellence, distinguished achievement, and service.
____________________
HONORING DR. MICHAEL B. HARRIS
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who
has distinguished
[[Page 6157]]
himself not just for his contributions to the medical field, but for
his charity and selfless devotion to others. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
honor Dr. Michael B. Harris of Englewood, New Jersey, this year's
winner of the Anti-Defamation League's Maimonides Award.
Maimonides was one of the great Jewish scholars. In addition to being
the first person to write a systematic code of all Jewish law, the
Mishneh Torah, he was also an expert on medicine, and one of his most
notable sayings is, ``The well-being to the soul can be obtained only
after that of the body has been secured.''
The list of Dr. Harris' accomplishments is long and distinguished. He
currently serves as Director of the Tomorrow's Childrens' Institute,
Chief of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology at the Hackensack University
Medical Center, and Professor of Pediatrics at the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Medical School, as well as having
authored or co-authored more than 50 articles and 50 abstracts in the
field of pediatric hematology/oncology.
While that sounds like it would be enough work for two people, he
still finds time to donate his expertise and give of himself to the
community. He is the Chair of the Medical Advisory Board of the Israeli
Children's Cancer Foundation and was recently asked to serve as Chair
of the Medical Advisory Committee of Gilda's Club of Northern New
Jersey. And he has been a member of the Board of Directors of
Congregation Ahavath Torah in Englewood for many years.
People who give so much of themselves as Dr. Michael Harris do not do
so for the recognition. However, he certainly deserves to receive it.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Dr. Michael Harris, as well
as his wife Frieda, and his children Miera, Aimee, Jonathan and Aaron
on the occasion of this well deserved tribute from the Anti-Defamation
League, and wish them health and happiness in the years to come.
____________________
OPERATION DESERT STORM AND THE 926TH FIGHTER WING
______
HON. RICHARD H. BAKER
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, in early August 1990, Iraqi military forces
illegally invaded Kuwait, a neighboring sovereign state. Immediately,
American military forces began deploying to the area to deter the
Iraqis from further aggression. During Operation Desert Shield, the
build-up phase for the later operation, Desert Storm, troops and
supplies were put into motion and decisions were made about who, when,
where, and how for the possible coming conflict should diplomatic
efforts prove unfruitful. During this buildup period, it was decided
there would be participation in this campaign by the reserve forces of
the United States military; and the unit to represent the United States
Air Force Reserve would be the 706th Fighter Squadron, along with
supporting personnel, of the 926th Fighter Wing from New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Approximately 500 members of the 926th Fighter Wing were recalled to
active duty and placed on military orders on Dec. 29, 1990. (Personnel
of the 926th Security Forces Squadron had already served a tour of duty
in Saudi Arabia in the fall of 1990 during the build-up phase of
Operation Desert Shield.) On the evening of Jan. 1, 1991, the
University of Tennessee was participating in the Sugar Bowl at the
Superdome in New Orleans as 18 combat-loaded A-10s took off from the
Naval Air Station at Belle Chasse, Louisiana, and turned eastward
toward Saudi Arabia. By Jan. 6, the 18 A-10s and the approximately 500
maintenance and support personnel would arrive at King Fahd
International Airport to support the military operation. This was the
first U.S. Air Force Reserve fighter unit to be activated by a
presidential recall and then sent to serve in a combat military
operation.
The members of the 926th Fighter Wing were in country less than two
weeks when, early in the morning, on Jan. 17, the first combat sorties
were launched to strike military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. The war
had begun. The early intent was to take down the enemy's communication
ability, followed closely by removing their artillery assets, and
demoralizing the ``elite'' Republican Guard. The air campaign that
ensued was a complete success, resulting in a swift four-day ground war
and a victory by allied forces. On Feb. 28, 1991, the war was over.
Amid the joy of victory work continued, and preparations began for
the demobilization of deployed American forces, including the return of
the members of the 926th Fighter Wing who distinguished themselves in
combat and served with honor alongside their active-duty counterparts.
On May 17th, the last of the 18 A-10s and 500 people originally
deployed to the region, returned safely to Naval Air Station, New
Orleans, Louisiana. Mission Accomplished! All personnel and all
aircraft deployed returned safely to home station.
Since that time, members and aircraft of the 926th Fighter Wing have
continued to answer the call to duty whenever and wherever needed. In
1995, approximately 300 members deployed to Aviano Air Base, Italy, in
support of Operation Deny Flight. Members have also deployed in support
of humanitarian missions in the Americas. Again, in 1998 members of the
unit deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in support of Operation
Southern Watch to support and help enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq
instituted after Operation Desert Storm. In September and October 1999,
A-10s and personnel from the wing returned to Kuwait to participate in
Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) 1.
This tradition of service and sacrifice continues into the 21st
century as in mid-January, 2001, members of the 926th Fighter Wing
began deploying to Southwest Asia for the wing's second rotation on the
AEF. Their mission this time being combat search and rescue for
Operation Northern Watch.
The successes of the 926th Fighter Wing during combat operations in
Operation Desert Storm, and throughout all of the on-going missions
since then, are due to the outstanding leadership, devotion to duty,
and sacrifice of the men and women of the unit; and, the valuable
support of their families. As a nation, we give thanks to the members
of the 926th Fighter Wing, New Orleans, Louisiana, and their families,
as we salute and honor them, during this 10-year anniversary of
Operation Desert Storm, for their service to our country in the cause
of freedom.
____________________
HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE 2001
______
HON. LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this past week we observed the Holocaust
Days of Remembrance and our nation's annual commemoration in the
Capitol Rotunda of the victims of the Holocaust. This year marks the
60th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide of the European Jews.
This year's theme, ``Remembering the Past for the Sake of the
Future,'' is part of a vow that we have taken never to forget the
Holocaust, lest history repeat itself. This message must resonate
through the years. Our children and our children's children must learn
of the Holocaust to ensure that it will never happen again.
We must also not forget that Holocaust survivors continue to wait for
the reparations they deserve for the physical pain and mental suffering
they endured so many years ago. Time is running out for Germany to
provide a measure of justice to the survivors of the Holocaust, most of
whom are now in their 70's or 80's.
I have stood with Holocaust survivors in the Capitol Rotunda filled
with the saddest and most tragic of memories from their lives, lives
like that of my constituent, Mr. Alec Mutz. Two years ago, I was
privileged to light a memorial candle with Mr. Mutz, who survived three
ghettos and five concentration camps. Mr. Mutz is just one of an
estimated 50,000 Jewish survivors in North America who were Nazi-era
slave laborers.
During the last Congress, I introduced H.R. 271, the Justice for
Holocaust Survivors Act, a bill to allow survivors like Mr. Mutz to
pursue just reparations from Germany for the unspeakable suffering they
endured during the Holocaust. H.R. 271, which garnered the support of
96 bipartisan co-sponsors, would have enabled Holocaust survivors who
have been denied reparations by the German government to sue the German
government in United States federal courts to claim restitution.
On March 30, 2000, I was informed by the Administration that the
German government had agreed to double its compensation package to the
victims of slave labor camps from 5 billion to 10 billion Deutsche
marks (DM), or the equivalent of 5 billion U.S. dollars. I was also
informed that H.R. 271 served as a catalyst in the talks between the
U.S. and Germany to reach a compensation agreement.
On July 17, 2000, the United States and Germany signed an agreement
to establish a German Foundation, ``Remembrance, Responsibility, and
the Future,'' to be the exclusive forum for the resolution of all
Holocaust-era personal injury, property loss, and damage claims against
German banks, insurers, and companies. In return, the U.S. government
promised that the Department of Justice would
[[Page 6158]]
urge the courts to reject all existing and future lawsuits against
German companies by slave laborers and other victims of the Nazi-era.
This process is called ``legal peace.''
However, nine months after the agreement, not one Deutsche mark has
been paid to the victims and last month, a federal judge in New York
refused to dismiss a batch of lawsuits, questioning whether the money
would be there to pay the claims. That is why in the coming weeks I
plan to introduce legislation to increase oversight of the Foundation,
interpret the U.S.-German Agreement more clearly, and expand
communication between the Administration and Congress about the status
of the Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, as we act to remember the Holocaust with the
commemoration of the Days of Remembrance, let us also act to give these
courageous survivors a beacon of hope for the just resolution of the
wrongs that they have suffered. I urge my colleagues to take notice of
the current failure of the U.S.-German Agreement and join me in calling
for a resolution to the problems with the claims process before it is
too late to grant justice to our aging Holocaust survivors.
Executive Office of the President
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 503--Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001
The Administration supports protection for unborn children
and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The
legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause
death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the
course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill
also would make substantially identical amendments to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would
strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so-
called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the
bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.
____________________
HONORING THE BOGOTA SCHOOL SAFETY PATROL PROGRAM
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. ROTHMAN Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the School
Safety Patrol Program which has been in existence in the Borough of
Bogota, New Jersey since 1936.
Through this program, which operates in conjunction with the Bogota
Police Department, a group of students from each of Bogota's three
elementary schools is chosen for the Safety Patrol based on academic
achievement and leadership abilities. The members of the Safety Patrol
are assigned a post each day for the purpose of assisting the other
students in safely crossing the street near the school as well as being
stationed around the school and the playground to assure the safety and
welfare of their fellow students.
Serving as a member of the Safety Patrol is both an honor and a
responsibility. And for the last 50 years, the Borough of Bogota has
rewarded the members of the Safety Patrol with a three-day trip to
Washington, DC. This year, I am pleased to meet with the members of the
Safety Patrol when they come to the Capitol, and I would like to read
their names into the Congressional Record to honor their outstanding
dedication:
Andres Acosta, Gabrielle Avitable, Weis Baher, Megan Bandelt, Joe
Baranello, Anthony Butler, Raymond Carrasco, Lauren Casteneda, Kristin
Costa, Christopher Desmond, Daniel Distasi, Zachary Gilbert, Mary
Hanna, Ben Hunkin, Thomas Khristopher, Georgios Kotzias, Brian Lauer,
Brooke Lonegan, Matthew Luciano, Wade Morris, Richard Nowatnick, Devin
Pantillano, Monica Patel, Anthony Perpepaj, Sara Puleio, Brian Pumo,
Raquel Rivera, Brian Roche, Caitlyn Rumbaugh, Christine Smith, Audrey
Snell, Michelle Sontag, Jeanette Symmonds, Alexander Zetelski, and
Sarah Zupani.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Bogota School Safety Patrol Program
on ajob well done, and I wish them luck in all their future endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY LADY BEARS
______
HON. ROY BLUNT
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay honor to the Women's Basketball
program at Southwest Missouri State University. The Lady Bears played
their way into the NCAA Final Four in St. Louis before losing to Purdue
University.
For the second time in 9 years, the Lady Bears of Southwest Missouri
found themselves in this select rankina of great women's teams in 2001
and though they did not play in the final game, they brought great
pride and excitement to the residents of the Seventh District of
Missouri and beyond.
Southwest Missouri State University women's basketball ranks
nationally among the top teams in fan attendance. Their legions of
dedicated followers were charged with excitement over the team's
success. The late season run of the Lady Bears packed Hammons Student
Center every game and sent fans searching for tickets as they won their
way through the NCAA tournament in Piscataway, New Jersey and Spokan,
Washington for the right to play in the Final Four in nearby St. Louis,
Missouri-just three hours from Springfield. Wherever the team played, a
bus or an airplane filled with its loyal fans followed.
The 2001 season for the nationally ranked Lady Bears was filled with
milestones. Coach Cheryl Burnett won her three hundredth victory in 14
seasons. The 29-6 record is the second best in the Lady Bear's history
behind the 1992 31-3 mark that also saw the Lady Bears in the Final
Four.
Five seniors anchored the squad: All-American Jackie Stiles, Tara
Mitchem, Carly Deer, Melody Campbell and Tiny McMorris. Stiles was the
nation's leader scorer with more than 30 points a contest and finished
the season as the NCAA's most prolific woman's scorer ever with 3,393
points in her four year career. She was also the first woman to score
1,000 points or more in a single college season. While Stiles dazzled
competitors with her scoring, it was team defense that played stunned
competitors into submission.
The Lady Bears fans understand the character of the team. Every young
woman on the squad has a tenacious work ethic and they are tireless,
never-give-up competitors. They played as a team of talented women who
shared the glory of their successes with their fans as they represented
a regional school in the Midwest competing and winning against better
know teams trom larger schools.
The Southwest Missouri State University Lady Bears are special not
just because of where they are from but because of how far they have
come in winning their way into the elite of their sport. The members of
the Lady Bears of Southwest Missouri State University are models for
other young women to follow and inspire them in their drive for
academic success off the court as well as sports success on it. Over
and over these young women said how proud they were to have played and
represented SMSU on the court. We will miss them, but remember their
accomplishments that are written in the history books of the great
women's basketball teams in America.
I know my Missouri colleagues will join me in applauding the great
work of Coach Cheryl Burnett with the 2001 team, as well as expressing
their belief that all of the senior members have bright futures ahead
of them with the commitment to excellence they demonstrated during the
2001 season and that their underclass teammates will carry their legacy
into the future.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BETTY GALLER
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Betty
Galler as she is honored by the Free Sons of Israel at it's Foundation
Fund's 75th Anniversary Celebration, for her 72 years of dedicated
service to the organization.
In the past 72 years Betty has unselfishly led the Foundation Fund in
numerous humanitarian efforts. The long and impressive list includes
donations to Camp Vacamas--(a camp for underprivileged children)--
ambulances for American Red Mogen David in Israel, purchasing prothesis
for those wounded in the Six Day War, and parties at the Kingsbridge
Veterans Hospital and at Francis Delafield Hospital. That is only a few
of the wonderful causes to which Betty has dedicated her time and
energy.
It is obvious what a remarkable human being Betty is. The Free Sons
of Israel, the nation's oldest Jewish fraternal order, and the Free
Sons Foundation Fund is extremely fortunate to have a person like Betty
Galler working for them. Now at the age of 93, she shows
[[Page 6159]]
no signs of ending her long and unbelievable career.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives
to join me now in extending our thanks and appreciation to Betty
Galler, the Guest of Honor at the Free Sons Foundation Fund's 75th
Anniversary Celebration, for her 72 years of tireless community
service.
____________________
IN CELEBRATION OF CRISSY FIELD, SAN FRANCISCO
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, for decades, Crissy Field stood as an idle
monument to its former life as a World War I landing strip. The cracked
runway and gray rubble lined San Francisco's shoreline and window to
the Bay. Part of a national park within the Presidio's boundaries, it
begged for renewal.
After years of effort and an unprecedented philanthropic success on
behalf of the Park's Crissy Field restoration, we are now on the verge
of celebrating a modern-day Crissy Field that also incorporates its
history. While evidence of the landing strip is no longer visible, a
rich historic marsh land has been brought back to a state that existed
long before aviation.
In two weeks, on May 6, the public will be welcomed to a great
celebration of the Crissy Field restoration project. Almost magically,
acres of rubble have been transformed into a magnificent public gateway
along the Presidio's border. A tidal marsh now exists, surrounded by
native plants and a public promenade that stretches for over a mile
along the beachfront.
This event, marking the completion of the restoration and the public
opening, was born as a concept a few years ago under the partnership of
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and the Golden Gate
National Parks Association (GGNPA). In a remarkably short period of
time, and in a remarkable show of support, this concept has come to
life.
Under the leadership of the first GGNPA Chair, Toby Rosenblatt, and
now under the continuing excellent leadership of Chair Charlene Harvey,
the dream of Crissy Field will be realized. This unique public-private
partnership has made it possible to turn a contaminated, abandoned
airfield into a conservation prize for our national park system.
This would not have been possible without the vision of these
individuals, the many contributors who followed this dream and the
significant efforts of Greg Moore, Executive Director of the GGNPA, and
Brian O'Neill, Superintendent of the GGNRA. Both Brian and Greg were
honored this week by the National Park Foundation for their energy,
innovation and enthusiasm in bringing this project to fruition. Greg
Moore accepted the National Park Foundation award for ``Restoration of
Crissy Field'' as the recipient of the 2001 National Park Partnership
Award in the environmental conservation category.
As the GGNPA Executive Director, Greg spearheaded the philanthropic
drive for Crissy Field which raised $34 million to fund this
spectacular restoration of San Francisco's Bay shoreline. The gift of
$18 million from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr., Fund and the Robert
and Colleen Haas Fund is the largest ever made to America's national
parks. This is a phenomenal accomplishment and one of which we are very
proud in our community. Congratulations to Charlene Harvey, the entire
GGNPA Board, the many philanthropic participants and to Greg Moore and
an excellent staff for their lasting contribution to our environment.
The Presidio and all of our Golden Gate National Parks are a source
of great pride to us and we are pleased that they welcome millions of
visitors each year for recreation and renewal. Congratulations to all
who have been involved in this spectacular project. It is a testament
to the great enthusiasm the public holds for our national parks. It is
a testament to the spirit of our San Francisco community and the able
leaders who brought this vision to life for us all.
____________________
COMMEMORATING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
______
HON. STEPHEN HORN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, once again I join my colleagues in remembering
those who suffered the tragic events of the Armenian Genocide. Each
year, we join the world in commemoration of the Armenian genocide
because the tragedy of lost lives through ethnic cleansing must not be
forgotten.
The Armenian genocide marked the beginning of a barbaric practice in
the 20th century with more than a million and a half Armenians killed
and forcibly deported. As the target of persecution by the Ottoman
Turks, Armenians were systematically uprooted from their homeland and
eliminated. To this day, the Turkish government continues to deny that
millions of Armenians were killed simply because of their ethnicity.
As an educator, I believe it is critical to emphasize the role
education must play in our international community. We must ensure that
we do not continue to see actions of racial intolerance or religious
persecution, which has led to so many cases of ethnic cleansing. The
tragedies of the past two decades including Cambodia, Rwanda and Kosovo
attest to this fact. We must, therefore, continue to commit to first
teaching our children tolerance.
If we refuse to acknowledge, understand, and vigorously oppose racial
and religious intolerance, wherever it arises, we are doomed to repeat
the same tragedies again and again.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to commemorate the
Armenian Genocide. I also want to thank the many Armenian-American
organizations throughout the nation, and in particular in California,
for their tremendous work on behalf of the Armenian-American community.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE JAMES PEAK WILDERNESS, JAMES PEAK PROTECTION AREA
AND WILDERNESS STUDY AREA ACT
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to
protect a key part of the high alpine environment along Colorado's
Continental Divide.
The 13,294-foot James Peak is the predominant feature in a 26,000
acre roadless area within the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest just
north and east of Berthoud Pass. The James Peak roadless area straddles
the Continental Divide within 4 counties (Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand
and Boulder). It is the largest unprotected roadless area on the
Northern Front Range. The area offers outstanding recreational
opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and backpacking.
I have been interested in wilderness protection for the James Peak
area since my election to Congress in 1998. In 1999, I introduced a
bill (H.R. 2177) in the 106th Congress that would have designated about
22,000 of the James Peak roadless area as wilderness, including about
8,000 acres in Grand County. This proposal was designed to renew
discussions for the appropriate management of these lands that qualify
for wilderness consideration.
The bill I am introducing today--the James Peak Wilderness, James
Peak Protection Area and Wilderness Study Area Act--is the product of
nearly two years of subsequent discussions with county officials,
interested groups, and the general public.
The previous bill had broad support. However, after its introduction,
the County Commissioners of Grand County--which includes the western
side of the James Peak area--expressed some concerns with the proposed
wilderness designation for the lands in that county. They indicated
that in their view any such legislation needed to make accommodation
for any ``dispersed recreation'' opportunities in the area and needed
to address private inholdings. The Commissioners also indicated that
the Rollins Pass road should be excluded from wilderness.
I agreed to work with Grand County on these and a number of other
issues. We held several discussions, including a public meeting in
Grand County. After that, the Grand County Commissioners indicated that
they could not ``entirely support [H.R. 2177] as presented,'' and
outlined a ``James Peak Protection Area'' alternative.
The Commissioners' ``protection area'' alternative did not spell out
all details, but its essence was that instead of designation of
wilderness there should be designation of a ``protection area'' that
would include the lands in Grand County proposed for wilderness in my
previous bill and also an additional 10,000 acres of national forest
land. The Commissioners' proposals also would have allowed for a
section of high tundra above Rollins Pass along the divide to be open
to motorized and mechanized recreation (snowmobiles and mountain
bikes).
[[Page 6160]]
I gave serious attention to this alternative and also carefully
considered the views of a variety of interested individuals and groups
who had concerns about it. Based on that, on February 12, 2001, I
released a more detailed legislative proposal for public review and
comment.
This proposal was based on the Commissioners' ``protection area''
alternative. It would have designated as wilderness 14,000 acres of the
James Peak roadless area in Boulder, Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties.
It also would have designated 18,000 acres in Grand County as a ``James
Peak Protection Area,'' and would have added 2,000 acres (that were
encompassed by the Commissioners' ``protection area'' alternative) to
the Indian Peaks Wilderness area (these acres were recommended for
wilderness by the Forest Service).
The proposal included language to spell out in more detail the
management regime of the ``protection area.'' These provisions
(including a ban on hardrock mining, a ban on campgrounds, and a ban on
timber cutting) were largely based the management rules for the Bowen
Gulch ``backcountry recreation'' area and the existing ``special
interest area'' Forest Service management under the 1997 Forest Plan.
Inclusion of the latter provision was at the request of the Grand
County Commissioners.
Following the release of this proposal, I met with the Grand County
Commissioners to discuss this proposal and for the option of wilderness
for some lands in the Grand County part of the James Peak roadless
area. This was a productive meeting. We discussed a number of issues,
most of which have been addressed in the bill that I am introducing
today. In summary, those issues included:
(1) Prohibiting Motorized and Mechanized Recreation Atop Rollins
Pass--Although this area was identified as a possible location for
motorized and mechanized recreation in the previous proposal, all
agreed (including the snowmobile and mountain bike users) that this
area should not be available for such use.
(2) Reopening the Rollins Pass Road--The Commissioners and the users
of the Rollins Pass road (also known as the Corona Pass road) indicated
an interest in reopening this road for two-wheel drive traffic.
Presently, this road is blocked due to the closure of the Needle Eye
tunnel and degrading railroad trestles. As a result, a number of
motorized recreational users have been creating roads and trails to
bypass these blockages. The users of Rollins Pass road indicated that
if this road could be reopened, then they would be willing to work with
the Forest Service to close these bypasses. The Grand County
Commissioners agreed with this suggestion.
(3) The Berthoud Pass Ski Area--The Commissioners expressed an
interest in drawing any proposed boundaries near Berthoud Pass to
accommodate the existing Berthoud Pass Ski Area's permitted boundary.
Everyone agreed that this should be done.
(4) Private Inholdings--The Commissioners expressed an interest in
ensuring that the rights of private inholders be preserved.
(5) Forest Service Management--The Commissioners requested that the
proposal include specific language indicating that the ``protection
area'' would be managed according to the 1997 Forest Plan. In addition,
the Commissioners and recreational users requested that this management
be flexible enough to allow the Forest Service to relocate trails,
roads or areas in order to address future management issues.
(6) Wilderness Addition to Indian Peaks--The Commissioners expressed
support for including the approximately 2,000-acre wilderness addition
to Indian Peaks--an area that was ``recommended for wilderness'' in the
1997 Forest Plan.
(7) Buffer Zone--The Commissioners indicated an interest in
considering the inclusion of language that would prohibit the
establishment of a restrictive ``buffer zone'' around the area. This
provision would ensure that the existence of a ``protection area''/
wilderness area would not lead to managerial restrictions on the lands
outside the proposed boundaries.
(8) Telecommunication Opportunities on Mount Eva--The Commissioners
also indicated an interest in keeping the top of Mt. Eva open for
telecommunication facilities as this area was used in the past for such
activity. However, the State Land Board permitted the previous
facilities on Mt. Eva as the intention was to site these facilities on
the State Land Board section. But the facilities were mistakenly
located on Forest Service land. Nevertheless, these facilities were
removed when the company went bankrupt. In addition, there are no
access roads or services to this area. Given all of these difficulties,
it was suggested that other locations for these options may be more
appropriate.
(9) Rogers Pass Trail--Members of the public also expressed interest
in keeping this trail open and available for mountain bike recreational
use. It is unclear whether this trail is in fact open to such use.
Nevertheless, the Grand County Commissioners indicated that they would
like to pursue the option of allowing such use of this trail.
(10) Prohibition of Land Exchanges--The Commissioners expressed an
interest in having the bill prohibit any further land exchanges in the
area to prevent further development from encroaching into Forest
Service areas.
I reworked my proposal to incorporate these issues. It was my hope
that in accommodating these concerns in the bill, that the Grand County
Commissioners would reconsider some wilderness protection for the lands
in the James Peak roadless area south of Rollins Pass. However, the
three Grand County Commissioners were divided on this question (one
Commissioner did suggest extending the wilderness boundary westwards
over the Divide and down to timberline in Grand County).
Nevertheless, the Grand County Commissioners did express support for
the wilderness addition to the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, support
for the ``protection area'' to be managed according to the 1997 Forest
Plan and for the adjustments that I had made based on their input.
Regrettably, however, they expressed opposition to any wilderness
designation now for lands south of Rollins Pass or Rogers Pass.
The Commissioners also indicated a concern that such a designation
might have some effect on water rights. I think it is clear that there
are no grounds for such concerns. Careful review has convinced me that
there are no water rights except those for national forest purposes and
no diversion facilities in the portion of the James Peak roadless area
south of Rollins Pass. In addition, if any such rights do exist, they
would not be extinguished by wilderness designation. Furthermore, as
any wilderness designation for this area would be governed by the 1993
Colorado Wilderness Act, the courts would be barred from considering
any assertion that the designation involved a federal reserved water
right. Further, this area is essentially a headwaters area. Wilderness
protection would thus ensure that water would continue to flow out of
this area--unimpeded--for downstream users and benefits.
The Grand County Commissioners did indicate that they understood and
found acceptable the Forest Service's process for periodic review of
the way it manages national forest lands in Grand County. Further, the
Commissioners indicated they would not oppose having the Forest Service
again review the lands south of Rollins Pass for possible wilderness
designation. They indicated that they were aware that the Forest
Service had reviewed this area in the past and could have recommended
it for wilderness, but did not do so. The Commissioners also indicated
that if the Forest Service were to review the area again, they would
respect that process.
Accordingly, the bill I am introducing today provides for such a
renewed study of these lands. It designates the James Peak roadless
lands in Grand County south of Rollins Pass as a ``wilderness study
area'' and directs the Forest Service to re-look at this area for
suitability as wilderness. This provision will preserve the status quo
on approximately 8,000 acres south of Rollins Pass by keeping this area
in its current roadless and pristine state. The bill would require the
Forest Service to report its recommendations for these 8,000 acres
within three years. It will then be up to Congress to decide regarding
the future management of these lands.
This part of the bill also addresses the Roger Pass trail issue--an
issue of importance to the Grand County Commissioners and users of this
trail. While I believe that this trail should be included in wilderness
(it is within the proposed wilderness study area), the bill directs
that the Forest Service evaluate whether and to what extent this trail
should be managed for mechanized recreational use.
I believe that the bill I am introducing today keeps faith with my
commitment to work with local County Commissioners and others. It
addresses a majority of the issues that were raised.
These lands are indeed special. They contain a number of high alpine
lakes and tundra ecosystems. This area also represents one of the last
remaining unprotected stretches of the Continental Divide that
comprises the Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop.
With the population growth occurring along the Front Range of
Colorado, I am concerned that if we do not protect these special lands
for future generations, we could loose a critical resource for future
generations. That is why I am introducing this bill and why I will work
hard for its enactment into law.
For the benefit of our colleagues, I am attaching a fact sheet that
summarizes the main provisions of the bill.
[[Page 6161]]
James Peak Wilderness, James Peak Protection Area and Wilderness Study
Area Act
Summary--The bill would designate the James Peak Wilderness
Area, add to the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area,
designate a James Peak Protection Area and a James Peak
wilderness study area, all within the Arapaho Roosevelt
National Forest in Colorado.
Background: In 1999, Congressman Mark Udall introduced the
James Peak Wilderness Act (H.R. 2177) which would have
designated about 22,000 acres of land in the Arapaho-
Roosevelt National Forest as wilderness north of Berthoud
Pass and south of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area. Since
then, there have been further discussions with county
governments, the Forest Service, and the public. On January
31, 2000, the Grand County Commissioners proposed the
alternative of designating lands in that county as a
``protection area'' instead of wilderness. On February 12,
2001, Congressman Udall released a proposal that was similar
to the Grand County ``protection area'' proposal. This bill
is a refined version of that proposal resulting from
discussions with the Grand County Commissioners and other
interested parties.
The Lands: The 13,294-foot James Peak is the predominant
feature in a 26,000-acre roadless area within the Arapaho-
Roosevelt National Forest just north and east of Berthoud
Pass. The James Peak roadless area straddles the Continental
Divide within 4 counties (Gilpin, Clear Creek, Grand and
Boulder). It is the largest unprotected roadless area on the
Northern Front Range. The area offers outstanding
recreational opportunities for hiking, skiing, fishing, and
backpacking, including the popular South Boulder Creek trail
and along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. It
also includes the historic Rollins Pass road which provides
access for mechanized and motorized recreation in the area.
James Peak is one of the highest rated areas for biological
diversity on the entire Arapaho National Forest, including
unique habitat for wildlife, miles of riparian corridors,
stands of old growth forests, and threatened and endangered
species. The area includes a dozen spectacularly situated
alpine lakes, including Forest Lakes, Arapaho Lakes, and
Heart Lake. Many sensitive species such as wolverine, lynx,
and pine marten only thrive in wilderness settings. Adding
James Peak to the chain of protected lands from Berthoud Pass
to the Wyoming boundary will promote movement of these
species and improve their chances for survival.
What the bill does: James Peak Wilderness: The bill would
designate over 14,000 acres of the James Peak area in Clear
Creek, Gilpin and Boulder Counties as the James Peak
Wilderness Area; Indian Peaks Wilderness Area Addition: The
bill would add about 2,000 acres in Grand County to the
existing Indian Peaks Wilderness area (these acres were
recommended for wilderness in the Forest Service's 1997
revised plan); James Peak Protection Area: The bill would
designate about 18,000 acres in Grand County as the James
Peak Protection Area and provide the following: Forest
Service to manage the area consistent with the management
directions for this area under the 1997 Forest Plan for the
Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest; No transfer of federal
lands by exchange or otherwise; Forest Service required to
designate appropriate roads, trails and areas for motorized
and mechanized recreation.
James Peak Wilderness Study Area: The bill would designate
about 8,000 acres in the part of the Protection Area
generally south of the Rollins Pass Road as a wilderness
study area. For these lands, the bill would direct the Forest
Service to do the following--study this area and report in
three years as to the suitability of these lands for
inclusion in the National Wilderness System: meanwhile,
manage the study area to preserve its wilderness
characteristics, and evaluate whether and, if so, to what
extent mechanized recreation (mountian bikes and snowmobiles)
should be allowed in the wilderness study area, especially
along the Rogers Pass trail.
Fall River Trailhead: The bill would establish a new
trailhead and Forest Service facilities in the Fall River
basin east of the proposed wilderness area--to be done in
collaboration with Clear Creek County and the nearby
communities of St. Mary's Glacier and Alice Township
General provisions: The bill also would: encourage but not
require the Forest Service to acquire two non-federal
inholdings within the wilderness study area; prohibit the
creation of a restrictive buffer zone around the wilderness
area, the Protection Area or wilderness study area; direct
the Forest Service to work with the respective counties if
the Rollins Pass road is reopened to two-wheel drive traffic.
What the bill does not do: Designate any portion of the
James Peak Roadless Area in Grand County as wilderness: The
bill would not create wilderness in the James Peak roadless
area in Grand County. Instead, it would designate a James
Peak Protection Area, subject to use and management
restrictions, as proposed by the County Commissioners and
within that would designate a wilderness study area.
Restrict Off-Road Vehicle Use Throughout the Area: The bill
would prohibit motorized and mountain bike recreation use in
the wilderness and wilderness study areas, but would allow
this use, consistent with the Forest Service's management
directives, in the Protection Area. Furthermore, the bill
would require the Forest Service to identify appropriate
roads, trails and areas for such use within three years. Such
identifications can be revised by appropriate Forest Service
processes.
Affect Water Rights: The bill would not affect any existing
water rights. In addition, all lands designated by the bill
are headwaters areas.
Affect the Berthoud Pass Ski Area: The bill would exclude
this Ski Area's existing permitted boundary.
Affect Search and Rescue Activities: The bill would not
affect the activities related to the health and safety of
persons within the area. Such necessary activities will be
allowed, including the need to use mechanized equipment to
perform search and rescue activities.
____________________
HONORING DR. THOMAS E. STARZL
______
HON. MELISSA A. HART
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Thomas E. Starzl arrived in Pittsburgh
some 20 years ago, and began his legendary work at the University of
Pittsburgh. It wasn't long after that the city became a world renowned
Mecca for organ transplantation. Since his arrival, more than 11,300
organ transplants have been performed at the University--an
accomplishment unmatched by any other program in the world. These
transplants represent the thousands of lives that Dr. Starzl touched,
and the true magnitude of his contribution to medicine. Like Dr. Starzl
himself, many of these patients are heroes--who even in their death
taught invaluable lessons that have advanced the field of organ
transplantation for the betterment of all mankind. Today, we think
nothing of replacing organs that have failed. But if it weren't for the
trailblazing efforts of Dr. Starzl, which have spanned more than four
decades ago, we would not be standing here in celebration of life--
indeed thousands and thousands of lives.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of Dr. Starzl's first liver
transplant in Pittsburgh, a milestone that spawned two decades of major
advances by Dr. Starzl and University of Pittsburgh faculty. Their work
sparked clinical and research activity of immense importance to the
medical community. Countless numbers of surgeons and researchers have
come to Pittsburgh from around the world to learn from the work of Dr.
Starzl. Surgeons returned to their home institutions with newly forged
skills to offer patients life-saving services. Research scientists went
back into the laboratories, challenged by Dr. Starzl's own quest to
answer some of medicine's most challenging questions.
On April 27, Dr. Starzl's former students and colleagues will pay
tribute to him as he enters emeritus status at the University of
Pittsburgh. It will be a celebration much to Dr. Starzl's liking--an
academic gathering in order to share important scientific information.
Dr. Starzl is a true pioneer who has transformed the world of
medicine. Since that day in 1963 when he performed the world's first
liver transplant at the University of Colorado, he has been at the
forefront of the heroic and life-saving advancements that are
continually being made in the medical community. His work will have a
lasting influence on the field of organ transplantation, and the world
of medicine as a whole. Dr. Starzl continues to inspire a new
generation of medical pioneers, and serves as an example of what
determination and passion and for one's work can achieve. So we honor
you today, Dr. Starzl, for your life's work. We thank you for your
passion, which has touched so many lives, and surely will touch many,
many more.
____________________
HONORING O.D. McKEE
______
HON. ZACH WAMP
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, Many folks would have turned a little faint at
the thought of trying to start a business during the depths of the
Great Depression in the 1930s.
But not O.D. McKee.
``O.D.,'' as he was known to his many friends and admirers, believed
that he could be successful in the baking business. And he and his
wife, Ruth, were not afraid to work hard.
Together they built a small bakery into a giant business with 5,000
employees and
[[Page 6162]]
plants in three states. I am proud that O.D. and Ruth McKee, who died
in 1995 and 1989, were citizens of the 3 rd District of Tennessee. And
I am very thankful that their company, McKee Foods Corporation,
headquartered in Collegedale, TN, near Chattanooga, continues to be an
important and vibrant corporate citizen of the 3rd District.
It is entirely fitting that the company has dedicated the O.D. McKee
Conference Room at the company's plant in Collegedale.
The McKees and their family typify the values of people who are
successful as business leaders--and human beings--in America. They had
dreams, drive and determination as they built McKee Foods and its
``Little Debbie'' Snack cakes and other products into internationally
recognized symbols of quality.
In the early years, the company operated out of a plant on Main
Street in Chattanooga. But later, the McKees sold out and moved to
Charlotte, N.C., and began another operation there. ``O.D.'' personally
designed that plant, which contained many innovations that put it well
ahead of its time. In the 1950s, the McKees repurchased the Chattanooga
business from Ruth's brother. In 1960, they introduced the ``Little
Debbie'' brand.
Their operations were--and are--a model for what a good company
should be. O.D. and Ruth were true partners in the business. He
supplied the vision and sales skills that helped to build the company.
She contributed down-to-earth, practical business sense, managing many
aspects of the bakery's operations, particularly in the early years. At
a time when this kind of arrangement was not very common in American
business, they drew equal salaries. Today, their company continues to
be based on trust and mutual respect among all employees. It is a major
part of the economy in Southeast Tennessee. In addition to the facility
in Collegedale, it has plants in Apison, Tenn.; Gentry, Ark., and
Stuarts Draft, Va., and markets its products in all 50 states, Canada,
Puerto Rico and U.S. military bases worldwide.
Truly, it is fitting that we pause to honor O.D. McKee and the
wonderful legacy he and his wife, Ruth, built.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. JOSEPH J. JACOBS: ENTREPRENEUR, HUMANITARIAN, AND
NOMINEE TO RECEIVE THE PRESIDENTIAL CITIZENS MEDAL
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Joseph J.
Jacobs, an renowned entrepreneur who created the Joseph J. Jacobs
Engineering Group many years ago. Dr. Jacobs is a chemical engineer by
profession, who has over the years become an outstanding humanitarian,
an economist, an educator, a philanthropist, and an author who wrote a
book in 1995 entitled: The Compassionate Conservative which became the
by-word of President George W. Bush's Administration. Above all, this
proud Lebanese-American became a great good friend of mine.
I have recently written to President George W. Bush asking him to
award Joseph Jacobs the Presidential Citizens Medal, an award that
recognizes citizens who have performed exemplary deeds of service for
their country or their fellow citizens and one that is awarded at the
sole discretion of the President.
Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that my letter to President
George W. Bush recommending that he award the Presidential Citizens
Medal to Dr. Joseph Jacobs, be printed hereafter in the Congressional
Record. On reading this letter, a tribute to Joseph J. Jacobs, my
colleagues will be reminded of the numerous citizens in the United
States who are sons and daughters of immigrants, who have worked hard
to create businesses that in turn create jobs and good fortune for
themselves and others.
Dr. Joseph Jacobs, son of immigrants from Lebanon, has used his
fortune to establish the Jacobs Family Foundation in order to
perpetually give back to the citizens of the United States through
education, through humanitarian services for underrepresented groups,
and through love for his fellow human beings.
April 17, 2001.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: For many years it has been my distinct
privilege to have as a good friend, Dr. Joseph J. Jacobs,
Chairman of the Board, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., in
Pasadena, California, who is a great humanitarian who has
contributed an abundance to society during his lifetime.
I am writing to highly recommend a Presidential Citizens
Medal for Dr. Jacobs which, in your discretion, you can award
at any time during this year should you decide to do so (in
accordance with Executive Order No. 11494 issued by then
President Nixon).
The Presidential Citizens Medal is awarded in recognition
of citizens of the United States who have performed exemplary
deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens
and is issued at your sole discretion.
Dr. Joseph J. Jacobs is the founder and chair of the Jacobs
Engineering Group of international renown with numerous
worldwide divisions, is more than 50 years old. He built his
company from a one-man chemical process consultancy to its
present status as the leading engineering-construction
company in the United States if not the world.
For many years Dr. Jacobs served as Chairman of the Board
of Trustees of the Polytechnic University of New York (1974-
1984 and 1992 to 1994). The University has named the
Administration building for Dr. Jacobs and a chair in the
Chemical Engineering Department has been established in his
and Mrs. Jacob's names. On April 29, 2001 Dr. Jacobs will be
honored for his contributions to the St. Nicholas Home, a
non-sectarian, non-profit nongovernmental support residence
for the elderly in Brooklyn, New York. His contributions to
the education system and humanitarian efforts in the area of
his birth, marks Dr. Jacobs as a remarkable leader who gives
back to society in recognition of the support he received
over the years in making Jacobs Engineering Group one of the
finest in the United States.
The recipient of many awards in the Chemical Engineering
world, Dr. Jacobs has established the Jacobs Family
Foundation, which targets its philanthropy on the issues of
community based economic development, youth and families at
risk, Arab-American cultural awareness and access to
educational and training opportunities for under represented
groups. In addition to grant support, the Foundation provides
technical assistance to non-profits in the areas of strategic
planning, leadership development and fund raising.
Dr. Jacobs is the author of numerous articles on Chemical
Engineering and economics, and was a contributing author to
the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Having made
substantial contributions to the study of a number of serious
social issues, one resulted in a highly praised PBS program
aired in 1986 on ``The Problems of Aging Parents of Adult
Children.''
In 1991, Dr. Jacobs completed his autobiography ``The
Anatomy of an Entrepreneur: Family, Culture and Ethics'' from
which we learn that he traces his high standards of morality
and ethics back to the ethnic background of his family and
the Lebanese American community in Brooklyn, NY where he was
born and raised.
Dr. Jacob's second book reflecting these values was
entitled, ``The Compassionate Conservative'' published by
Huntington House in 1995, and a second edition was published
in December 1999; a book whose title you have made the by-
word of your Administration.
It is my profound hope that you will award the Presidential
Citizens Medal to Dr. Joseph Jacobs in the coming year, an
award that is made solely at your discretion. From the
foregoing, and from the attached biography on Dr. Jacobs, I
believe that you will agree that he is an exemplary man who
deserves your recognition.
I will look forward to your response to this sincere
request on behalf of a wonderful man who has given much to
the citizens of the United States throughout a lifetime of
hard work and achievement.
With warm regard, I am
Sincerely,
Nick J. Rahall II,
Member of Congress.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM IN PHILADELPHIA
______
HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the African
American Museum in Philadelphia (AAMP) upon its selection by the
Smithsonian Institution as a new Smithsonian Affiliate. Thus, AAMP
becomes the only museum in Philadelphia, the fourth in Pennsylvania and
one of 67 cultural institutions across the nation with such a
designation.
The Smithsonian affiliate outreach program brings the institution
closer to all Americans by creating exhibition opportunities throughout
the nation by the sharing of its collections and resources. And, the
affiliation provides AAMP with opportunities to display objects from
its collections in the Smithsonian's Arts and Industries building on
the national Mall in Washington, DC.
Founded in 1976, in celebration of the U.S. Bicentennial, the AAMP is
dedicated to collecting, preserving and interpreting material and
intellectual culture of African Americans.
[[Page 6163]]
AAMP attracts a multi-cultural, multi-generational audience. Located in
the First Congressional District, the Museum has a collection of more
than 500,000 objects, images and documents.
AAMP will open its inaugural exhibition marking the affiliation,
Affirmations: Objects and Movements, September 20, 2001. The exhibition
will contain objects from the Smithsonian's national museums of
American History, American Art and the Anacostia Museum and Center for
African American History and Culture.
The incorporation of the AAMP into the Affiliate program is an
important milestone in the history of this vital institution and it
also coincides with the Museum's celebration of its 25th anniversary.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JAMES RAMOS, SR.
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to extend my
personal regards and congratulations to James Ramos, Senior, on the
occasion of his 60th birthday.
May this special day be filled with joy and happiness and may the
future bring James good health, abundant wealth and the time to enjoy
both.
James is the youngest of eight children, born and raised in the East
Highlands community, and started to work in support of his family as a
young man of fourteen in a citrus packinghouse. He went on to serve his
country in the Army and returned to work for the San Bernardino Unified
School District for over 26 years. He has always modeled a strong work
ethic for his family, and those who love him, speak of his lifelong
dedication of service to others.
James should be proud of his marriage of 35 years to the beautiful
Rena, and of the four wonderful children he has raised to be upstanding
and contributing citizens and proud parents, in their own right.
``Jaime'', my friend, may the rain always fall gently on your house
and may your face always greet the rising sun.
James' family offers the following on the occasion of his birthday:
Touching our lives with his gentle strength and guiding us through
the years, everyone cherishes ``Jaime'' for the contributions he has
made. Growing up, we remember our father for fishing with bologna,
jerky and Velveta Cheese, for playing ``Billy Boy'' on his guitar while
we danced and sang along, and how much dedication he has committed
toward leading our family.
Raised in the East Highlands Community, he was the youngest of eight.
Over the years he has accomplished so much.
His strong work ethic can be used as an example to us all. Starting
at the mere age of 14, he worked in a packinghouse. Dad has served in
the United States Army. And he has worked for 26 years for the San
Bernardino School District. All of his hard work and dedication to
serving others has been shown by living his dream of working with state
and local dignitaries. He has been married to Rena for 35 years.
Together they have four children: Ken, Alaina, James and Tom Tom, while
Barbara is loved as well. Instilling the importance of higher education
he encouraged his children to pursue college. He is also a grandfather
of 14 and has a great-grandchild on the way.
Dad, we love you. Don't ever think for one day that the things you do
go unnoticed because not only does God see them, we do too.--Love, Your
Kids.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO MR. BILL WILLIAMS
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER JOHN
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, each morning in my hometown of Crowley, in the
heart of South Louisiana's Cajun Country, residents turn on the radio
to a familiar sound. Between the classic melodies of the 1930s and 40s,
listeners are treated to their daily dose of local news, talk and
happenings in and around the Crowley area. In many households, this
start to each new day is a family tradition. Young and old alike tune
in to AM 1450 in the early hours of each morning to hear the voices of
Bill Williams and Shel Kanter supply the local news, school lunch
menus, and the ever-popular mystery quiz. Far from ordinary and always
full of surprises, Bill and Shel truly are the ``voices'' of Crowley.
Bill and his partner Shel have made the Bill Williams/Shel Kanter
radio program a morning staple. Forty-four years of continuous air time
is a feat in any media market, but Bill and Shel offer so much more
than a radio show. They perform a service to our community each
morning, by getting our day off to a positive start and reminding us
that humor is the rule rather than the exception.
I would like to honor Mr. Bill Williams for his lifetime of service
and dedication to the citizens of Crowley. I join with the Crowley
community in commending him for his selfless and tireless efforts to
better and promote our home. Though he was bom in Illinois, and spent a
considerable portion of his life in the Northeast, Bill has become such
a vital part of our community over the past 44 years, that it is
difficult to imagine there is any other place he would desire to call
home.
Off the air, Bill is a leader in the Town of Crowley. He serves on
the Crowley City Council and has worked diligently to make the
International Rice Festival one of the most recognized cultural
celebrations in Louisiana. He is commonly known as ``Mr. Rice
Festival,'' and he was recently honored by the Louisiana Rural Tourism
Commission for his success in growing the annual event. Bill has made
the Rice Festival an annual celebration of our area's rich agricultural
industry, culture, cuisine and history. Today, the International Rice
Festival is the oldest and largest agricultural festival in Louisiana,
due in large part to Bill's efforts.
I want to offer him a heartfelt thanks for his constant efforts to
build upon Crowley's tradition of excellence. Bill, I honor you, I
honor your devotion to the betterment of our community, and most
importantly I thank you for your lifetime of dedication to our
wonderful hometown.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. XAVIER BECERRA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on April 3 and 4, I was unable to cast my
votes on roll call votes: No. 76 on motion to suspend the rules and
pass H.R. 768; No. 77 on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.
Res. 91; No. 78 on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 56
as amended; No. 79 on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con.
Res. 66; No. 80 on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 111; No 81 on
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 642 as amended; No. 82 on
agreeing to the substitute amendment to H.R. 8 offered by Mr. Rangel;
No. 83 on motion to recommit H.R. 8 with instructions; and No. 84 on
passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted
``yea'' on roll call votes 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, and ``nay'' on
roll call votes 77 and 84.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO RHODA STAHL
______
HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rhoda Stahl
on the celebration of her 90th birthday on Thursday, April 26, 2001.
Rhoda has lived a long and fullfilling life. She married her
childhood sweetheart, Harry Stahl, on March 1, 1931. Together they had
three children, Renee, Joel, and Larry. After the birth of their second
child, the family moved to Long Island City, NY.
While in Long Island City she aided her husband by serving as the
First Lady of Congregation Adath Israel while he was the congegation's
President.
Rhoda was a devoted wife and mother during her 58 years of marriage
to Harry. In 1978, she retired to Florida and then in 1989 she moved to
San Diego, to live the rest of her long life near her daughter Renee.
Rhoda is now the proud grandmother of nine and great-grandmother of
six. She is fortunate enough to spend her 90th birthday with friends
and family from New York, Maryland, Virginia, and San Francisco.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to
join me in extending my best wishes and congratulations to Rhoda Stahl
on the occasion of her 90th birthday and in wishing her many more happy
and healthy years with her loving family.
[[Page 6164]]
____________________
EARTH DAY
______
HON. NANCY PELOSI
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, on Earth Day, we celebrate an important
milestone of the modern environmental movement in 1970, and we
celebrate three decades of progress in protecting the environment.
Thanks to the persistence and hard work of environmental champions from
all walks of life, Americans enjoy cleaner air and cleaner water than
in 1970.
Yet we still have far to go to achieve a sustainable approach to
living on the Earth. We need leaders who have the vision to see that
the fate of human beings and the environment are inextricably
intertwined. We need leaders who appreciate that with new ideas, new
practices, and new technologies, we can enjoy prosperity and economic
growth without sacrificing the environment.
Instead, in his first 100 days in leadership, President Bush has
acted swiftly to roll back a series of initiatives to protect the
environment and human health:
Arsenic. Revoked new regulations to reduce the level of arsenic, a
known carcinogen, in drinking water.
Hard-rock mining. Dumped new regulations that would make it tougher
for mining companies to walk away from pollution caused by mining.
Global warning. Broke his campaign promise to reduce emissions of
carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming.
Kyoto protocol. Announced that the United States--which has already
signed the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--will
withdraw from any further negotiations and will not seek ratification
of the climate change treaty.
National forests. Postponed rules to protect 58 million acres in our
national forests by prohibiting new roads, and is widely expected to
try to overturn the new rules completely.
National monuments. Encouraged proposals to change boundaries and
loosen protections against mining and logging operations in the new
monuments.
Energy efficiency. Scaled back regulations to make air conditioners
and heat pumps more efficient--at a time when electricity is in short
supply and prices are shooting up in California and around the country.
Electricity generation is a major contributor to air and water
pollution.
In the new millennium, we must realize that the environment is
central to our lives. Because of global warming, it is predicted that
the oceans could rise by as much as three feet in the period between
1990 and 2100. In San Francisco, where the ocean is already practically
lapping at our feet, it is daunting to think about the damage the
rising waters are likely to cause to our peninsula.
This Administration seeks 19th century solutions to 21st century
problems. The Administration's policies on energy and global warming
are a prime example. Faced with energy shortages and high energy
prices, the Administration advocates increased drilling for oil and
gas. Yesterday, the White House reaffirmed its commitment to driling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of our priceless natural
treasures. In the face of world-wide concern about global warming, the
Administration has renounced the climate change treaty.
The Administration is responding to pressure from many companies in
the electricity, coal, oil, and gas industries to continue with
business as usual. But instead of clinging to the energy policies of
the past, the United States should lead the world in developing energy
efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
I salute business leaders who recognize the value of environmental
protection. In fact, a number of major corporations have recognized the
threat of global warming and are acting to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. But sometimes the corporate sector needs a push to adopted
new technologies and new ways of thinking. We need political leaders
who understand this dynamic.
No discussion of the environment is complete without focussing on
environmental justice.
Environmental health will be a major human rights issue in the 21st
century. Everyone has the right to live in an environment free of
deadly pollutants and toxic waste, and every child has a right to be
born free of exposure to toxic chemicals. But today, millions of
Americans are exposed to dangerous contaminants in our food, water,
air, and even our mother's milk. Minority and low-income communities
are particularly vulnerable to environmental health hazards, since the
factories and waste dumps that emit pollutants are often located near
poor or minority communities that have less political power.
Last Thursday, President Bush announced the United States would sign
the treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) that was negotiated
by the Clinton Administration. I am delighted that the US will sign the
POPs treaty, which will ban or phase out 12 pollutants that are
extremely hazardous to the health of humans and animals. But I note
that the treaty is supported by the chemical industry--so this
excellent decision did not require political courage or vision.
Furthermore, we should ensure that new chemicals are safe to human
health and the ecosystem before they become pervasive in our air,
water, food, and our bodies.
This Administration is still living in the 20th century when it comes
to environmental issues. It's time to move into the 21st century.
Working together, we can make each Earth Day a celebration of progress,
not a day of protest.
____________________
TRIBUTE HONORING OFFICER DON WYBLE
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
honor Salida patrolman, Don Wyble. On March 20, Don was named ``Police
Officer of the Year'' for the 11th Judicial District for him
outstanding work as a police officer during the past year. Don is the
second Salida Police Officer to be recognized as the ``Officer of the
Year.''
According to Salida Police Chief, Darwin Hibbs, Don was nominated for
his work both on and off duty. Don serves as the chairman of the
Chaffee County Adult Protection Team, which discusses the needs of
elderly citizens and then attempts to provide services. He also serves
as the police department's liaison with Triad, a group dedicated to
protecting the public from large scale scams. ``I think Don represents
our department well. He has a tremendous work ethic and has always done
a tremendous job,'' said Hibbs in a recent article from the Mountain
Mail.
Don began his work with the police department as a reserve in 1980.
In 1988 he was upgraded to full-time code enforcement, and then in the
spring of 1990, Don was promoted to patrolman. ``I have to be proud of
the opportunity to represent Salida. This award is for all of the
department, not just me. It takes all of us to get the job done.''
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask that we take this
opportunity to thank Don for his service to the community of Salida,
Colorado. I know that Don will continue to protect and serve his
community for years to come.
Don, your community, state and nation are proud of you!
____________________
FREE TRADE
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an
editorial appearing in today's Wall Street Journal which is headlined
``Free Trade Doesn't Require Treaties''. The column is authored by
Pierre Lemieux, a professor of economics at the University of Quebec.
Professor Lemieux seems to grasp quite well what few in Congress have
come to understand--that is, ``The primary rationale for free trade is
not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers
should have more choice--even if the former is a consequence of the
latter.'' Mr. Lemieux went on to point out that the leaders of the 34
participating states in the recent Quebec summit ``are much keener on
managed trade than on free trade and more interested in income
redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade
restrictions.''
The professor's comments are not unlike those of the late economist
Murray N. Rothbard, devotee of the methodologically-superior Austrian
school, who, with respect to NAFTA, had the following to say:
[G]enuine free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its
deformed cousin, a `trade agreement'; NAFTA is called an
agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of
approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment
truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our
numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other
American-imposed restrictions of free trade.
[[Page 6165]]
No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of ``free trade''
(and the impending request for fast track authority) fosters the
opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders
examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each
individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of
the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big
business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider
exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in
general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the
mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the
expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
Mr. Speaker, again I commend Mr. Lemieux's column and encourage the
recognition ``that free trade is but the individual's liberty to
exchange across political borders.''
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 2001]
Free Trade Doesn't Require Treaties
(By Pierre Lemieux)
Montreal.--Three-quarters of a century before the Summit of
the Americas convened in Quebec City last weekend, John
Maynard Keynes marveled at globalization. ``[T]he inhabitant
of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea
in bed, the various products of the whole earth. . . .''
Keynes wrote. ``[H]e could at the same time and by the same
means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new
enterprise of any quarter of the world. . . . [H]e could
secure forthwith, if he wished, cheap and comfortable means
of transit to any country or climate without passport or
other formality.''
The decades preceding World War I were a period of
globalization that was at least as extensive as today's. To
the extent that the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) moves this continent to ward freer trade, it would
help recover the lost promise of the pre-1914 world. But the
Quebec summit sent conflicting messages, none of them
revolutionary.
The leaders of the 34 participating states showed that they
are much keener on managed trade than on free trade, and more
interested in income redistribution and regulation than in
the rooting out of trade restrictions. ``The creation of a
free trade area is not an end in itself,'' said Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
With excruciating political correctness, he added: ``We
have focused on a global action plan of co-operation to
reduce poverty, protect the environment, promote the adoption
of labor standards and encourage corporate responsibility.''
The participants' ``Plan of Action'' contained measures that
range from tobacco regulation and gun control to the
monitoring of financial transactions.
What of the ``no passport'' world celebrated by Keynes? In
Quebec, as at other international trade meetings, state
representatives behaved as agents of their country's
exporters. You give us this ``concession,'' they intone, and
we will allow your exporters to enter our markets in return.
Yet this misrepresents grossly the nature of trade and a free
economy.
The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters
should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have
more choice--even if the former is a consequence of the
latter. By presenting themselves as members of an exporters'
club, trade negotiators lay themselves open to attack by
those who claim that free trade only works to the benefit of
corporations.
Economists have known for centuries that free trade can be
promoted without free-trade agreements. A country's
inhabitants would obtain many of the advantages of free trade
if only their own government would stop imposing restrictions
on imports. Behind the veil of financial transactions,
products are ultimately exchanged against products, so that
the more imports that come into a country, the more will
foreign demand grow for its exports. Or else, foreign
exporters will have to invest in the country, thereby
creating a trade deficit; nothing wrong with that either.
In other words, if you want free trade, just trade. Much of
the pre-World War I free trade was, indeed, due to Britain's
unilateral free-trade policies.
Trade agreements are only helpful to the extent that they
help tame domestic producers' interests, support the primacy
of consumers, and lock-in the gains from trade. Such treaties
should not aim at reducing competition by pursuing other
goals, of the sort embraced by the heads of state at Quebec.
That would amount to no more than managed trade, the pursuit
of which, paradoxically, might be said to unite both the
leaders present and the mobs demonstrating against them.
William Watson, a Canadian economist, has noted in the
Financial Post that the demonstrators who don't trust
governments to negotiate free trade come, contradictorily,
from political constituencies generally known for their blind
faith in government. As for the small group of anarchists,
they apparently do not realize that closed borders, and the
prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults,
actually increase state power.
On one stretch of Saturday's march, demonstrators wore
large bar codes taped to their mouths, as if free trade meant
turning them into speechless numbers. How droll! These
demonstrators were certainly, and perhaps proudly, carrying
in their wallets government-imposed Social Security numbers,
drivers' licenses and Medicare cards, which, surely, have
made them numbered state cattle. Another fabulous irony:
American would-be demonstrators complained about being denied
entry into Canada, while their entire message is predicated
on tighter borders.
Once we realize that free trade is but the individual's
liberty to exchange across political borders, it is easy to
see that forbidding it requires punishment or threats of
punishment. You have to fine or jail the importer who doesn't
abide by trade restrictions. In FTAA debates as in other
trade issues, a source of much confusion is the failure to
realize that free trade is a consequence of individual
sovereignty.
____________________
HONORING THE LATE DR. CHARLES TEISSIER FREY
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I ask this
body to pause for a moment and pay respects to one of the great
citizens of the Western Slope of Colorado. On March 27, Dr. Charles
Teissier Frey passed away. He was 83 years old. His passing is a great
loss to the community of Cedaredge, Colorado. Dr. Frey is survived by
his four sons, Larry, Robert, William, Stephen, his five grandchildren,
wife Ada Lewis, and his sister, Evelyn.
Dr. Frey has been a member of the community since 1947. Before moving
to Colorado, Dr. Frey attended Tulane University and Louisiana State
University Medical School where he learned to be a doctor. In 1942, he
joined the U.S. Army as a physician. Dr. Frey was a member of the
American Board of Family Practice and the American Academy of Family
Physicians. He has been given numerous honors, awards and distinctions
as well as the National Rural Health Practitioner of the Year for 1987.
While in Cedaredge, Dr. Frey served on the Town Council for eight
years. He also served as a volunteer with Project HOPE, were he worked
on a Navajo Reservation in Belize, British Honduras and Taiwan. He was
also a member of the Cedaredge Community Church.
In the late 60's, Dr. Frey gathered a group of acquaintances and
friends to arrange funding for a nursing home which would be dedicated
to maximum service and minimum profit. For 15 years the Horizons
Nursing Home paid no dividends and no fees to the Board of Directors,
while serving seniors admirably.
Mr. Speaker, the community of Cedaredge and Dr. Frey's family will
miss him greatly. He has done so much for the community, that's why I
would to take a moment and honor Dr. Charles Teissier Frey. He is a
great American and distinguished Coloradoan who will be greatly missed.
____________________
TRIBUTE HONORING DOCTOR GORDON GILBERT
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment and pay
special tribute to a very special person. Doctor Gordon Gilbert, a
professor of physics at Mesa State College for over 20 years who has
seen and done a lot in his lifetime. It is with this life of service
that I would now like to recognize.
After receiving his masters degree from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Dr. Gilbert went on to work for the Apollo Space Project
at NASA. He was part of the team involved with the lunar landing. When
that program finished, he went back to MIT to earn his doctorate. When
he finished school, the University of Arizona offered him a faculty
position, where he spent 10 years observing and researching galaxies
and quasars from the new Kitt Peak National Observatory.
Dr. Gilbert's dream has always been to teach, and that finally came
true in 1980, when a small liberal arts college in Colorado hired him
and a group of distinguished colleagues to build their physics program,
which
[[Page 6166]]
today is cutting edge. Dr. Gilbert has an unusual but highly successful
style in his classes. He has been known to show up as Isaac Newton,
Galileo, or Albert Einstein.
Dr. Gilbert has continued to teach and do research while battling
prostate cancer for the last 10 years. ``I'm told I have about three
more years. I've been told that every other year since 1992.'' Despite
all he has accomplished, his greatest gift is being a dad to his three
kids, Beth, James, and Thomas. ``It may be true. I don't laugh at it. I
don't take it for granted. But I do know the roses have never smelled
sweeter.''
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gilbert has done a lot for science, space
exploration and his students. And despite having cancer, he is still
giving it his all in the classroom and with his family. I applaud,
Gordon and all that he has accomplished in his lifetime, and I want to
thank him and wish him all the best in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO COLORADO STATE SENATOR JIM DYER
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Colorado State Senator Jim Dyer of Durango for his years of
service to the State of Colorado and to wish him good luck in his new
position. Senator Dyer has accepted a nomination by Colorado Governor
Bill Owens to join the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Although
the State Senate will miss Jim greatly, I know that Jim's leadership
and service to the State of Colorado will continue with the PUC.
Senator Dyer has been a member of the State Legislature for 15 years
serving in the House for 12 years and the Senate for 3 years. He was
first elected to the House in 1986, and then in 1998 he was elected to
the state Senate. He served as the chair of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Committee, as well as on the Veterans and Military Relations
Committee and the Transportaiton Committee. ``I think we've all been
served well by Jim. Regardless of the fact we're of different political
parties, he's a good friend of mine. . . . Jim has always taken a
strong stance for us locally. Jim has never lost the viewpoint that
small government is important to the process,'' said County
Commissioner Fred Klatt.
Senator Dyer has also had a distinguished career in the military.
Senator Dyer served in the U.S. Navy from 1959-1964 and the U.S.
Marines from 1964-1979 with three tours of duty in Vietnam. During his
years in the military, Senator Dyer was recognized with the Soldiers
Medal, three Bronze Stars, the Air Medal, the Gallantry Cross with Palm
(Republic of Vietnam), and the Order of Military Merit (Republic of
Korea).
In his spare time, Senator Dyer is involved as a member of the VFW,
the American Legion, the National Rifle Association, and the Durango
Historical Society. ``I feel he has been a very fine Senator and
represented our area very well. He has always been responsive to our
needs and responsive when he could do things for us at the state
level,'' said Mayor Jim Shepard.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
Senator Jim Dyer on his new position and wish him good luck in the
future. He will be missed in the state legislature.
Mr. Speaker, Senator Dyer is a person of high integrity and honor. I
consider it a privilege to have known and worked with him.
Jim has served the State of Colorado well in the state Senate and I
know he will continue that record of leadership in his new capacity
with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR GINETTE (GIGI) DENNIS
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Colorado State Senator Gigi Dennis for her years of service to
the State of Colorado and to wish her good luck in her new position.
Senator Gigi has served in the Colorado State Senate since 1995, but is
resigning at the end of the month to accepted an appointment from
President George W. Bush to become the Colorado Director of the
Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development. ``I'm proud of
her,'' said her husband Dean Dennis. ``I'm proud of her
accomplishments.'' I know that Gigi's friends and neighbors in south-
central Colorado, her colleagues in the Colorado legislature, and
elected officials all across Colorado--including me--share Dean's
sentiments. We are all proud of Gigi!
Senator Dennis has held numerous positions of real significance
during her seven years in office, including Vice Chair of the
Transportation Committee, a Member of the Legislative Council and
Chairman of the Majority Caucus. Senator Dennis also served as the Rio
Grande County Republican Secretary. Additionally, she served as a
member of the State Accountability Commission on Education, and the
Vice Chairman of the Education Committee (NCSL).
Senator Dennis summed up her feelings like this: ``This resignation
is not like walking away from my constituents, but creating a bigger
circle of people I can impact through this office. In the end, it
doesn't make any difference who gets the credit or who wins the fight.
. .but whether Colorado citizens are better off for what we do. I'm
extremely honored that President Bush has selected me for this
position. This is another terrific opportunity to continue to help the
State of Colorado, particularly the rural areas that I've represented
over the years.''
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
Senator Gigi Dennis on her new position and wish her good luck in the
future. She will be missed in the state legislature.
Gigi has served the State of Colorado well in the state Senate and I
know she will continue that record of leadership in her new capacity
with the Department of Agriculture.
____________________
HONORING OMI, WINNER OF THE MALCOLM BALDRIGE AWARD
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate, Operations Management International, Inc., one of the
2000 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award winners. President Clinton
presented the Malcolm Baldrige award to OMI. The award, first presented
in 1988, recognizes US companies for business performance excellence
and competitive improvement. It is the highest-level quality award
given in the U.S.
The Baldrige Award evaluates organizations on seven performance
excellence criteria: leadership, strategic planning, customer and
market focus, information and analysis and human resource focus. This
award recognizes organizations that play a major role in energizing our
nation's economy and quality of life. OMI uses these criteria as a
cornerstone for its ``Obsessed With Quality'' process. OMI is an
employee-owned global leader in the management of water, wastewater and
utility systems.
This is the first time that a water treatment company has won the
Baldrige Award. OMI operates and maintains more than 160 public and
private sector wastewater and water treatment facilities in 29 states
and eight countries. Their primary services are processing raw
wastewater to produce clean, environmentally safe effluent and
processing raw groundwater and surface water to produce clean, safe
drinking water.
``OMI began its quality journey in 1990 when we initiated our
`Obsessed with Quality' process. Winning the Baldrige Award
demonstrates how our quality process continues to positively affect the
millions of lives our people touch . . . My thanks to all OMI
associates for a job well done,'' said OMI President Don S. Evans.
Mr. Speaker, OMI is helping our economy grow and is setting an
example for other businesses to follow. I want to thank them and
congratulate them for their continued success.
____________________
HONORING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF WESTERN STATE COLLEGE
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
wish Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado a happy 100th
birthday. Since 1901 Western State College has been a model of
excellence. It is that record of achievement that I would now like to
honor.
On April 16, 2001, then Governor James B. Orman signed a bill
creating the Colorado State Normal School at Gunnison. This bill was a
victory for the citizens of Gunnison, who would claim the first college
west of the divide.
[[Page 6167]]
This was the culmination of years of work on the part of Gunnison area
citizens. Early efforts for a college came in 1885 when Archie M.
Stevenson, a Gunnison resident and state senator for the district,
introduced a bill in the Colorado General Assembly.
The cornerstone for the Normal School building was laid in October
1910 with the first classes beginning in September 1911. A total of 13
students attended classes taught by ten professors. In 1923 the
college's name was changed to Western State College and it became a
liberal arts college. Over the years Western has earned a reputation as
a College whose faculty care deeply about teaching and working closely
with the students.
Western State College has developed strong academic programs in many
areas and have attracted faculty with degrees from all over the world.
Western's biology program has received a ``Program of Excellence''
award from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. In 1975,
Western's Water Workshop began, and continues to attract participants
from around this region to work on one of west's most pressing issues.
Western has recently opened a state of the art $9 million science
building, making it one of the most sophisticated science facilities in
the state. Its athletic department has placed in the top 10 nationally
over the past few years in the Sears Cup for outstanding Division II
schools.
Mr. Speaker, for 100 years, Western State College has continued to
excel in its educational mission. I would like Congress to praise the
institution for its outstanding accomplishments and wish it continued
success and another 100 years of excellence.
____________________
TRIBUTE HONORING THE WINERY
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two of Grand
Junction's leading restaurateurs and an outstanding dining
establishment. After 28 years, Winery owner Frank Bering is retiring
from the business, turning over the reins to Chris Blackburn who
recently purchased this long-time staple of Main Street eateries. I
would now like to pay tribute to both of these outstanding individuals
and a wonderful restaurant known throughout western Colorado--The
Winery.
Frank founded The Winery 28 years ago after he moved to the Western
Slope from Chicago. Frank decided Grand Junction needed a good
restaurant after he ordered a glass of red wine, which was served
chilled instead of room temperature. With the help of Grand Junction
residents, Frank opened The Winery. ``I'm bittersweet about it, but I'm
going on to a new life,'' Frank said in a recent Grand Junction Daily
Sentinel story about leaving the business.
Frank's restaurant did very well, thanks both to great food and the
oil and uranium boom of the late 70's and early 80's. It was then that
Frank decided to open up G.B. Gladstone's, and managed to keep it going
through the economic bust of the 80's. My good friend Chris Blackburn,
who recently bought Gladstone's as well, views Frank as a pioneer who
saw potential where no one else did. According to John Moss, another
restaurant owner and personal friend of mine, Frank did more than build
a reputation and make a living--he changed the culture and the
community of Grand Junction.
Mr. Speaker, both Frank and Chris deserve the thanks and
commendations of this body. As Frank moves on to new pursuits, we say
thank you for your hard work and service. As Chris takes the helm at
one of Grand Junction's best known restaurants, we say best wishes for
continued success.