october 18, 1995 congressional record— e1965 …two centuries now of having its pay in-creases...

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1965October 18, 1995

THE FLAG DESECRATIONAMENDMENT

HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR.OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, October 18, 1995

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I place in theRECORD a paper written by George Anastaplo,law professor at Loyola University, Chicago.

Professor Anastaplo has more than oneacademic discipline, including lecturer in theliberal arts at the University of Chicago andProfessor Emeritus of political science and ofphilosophy at Rosary College. This paper wasdelivered by Professor Anastaplo at the Con-stitution Day banquet organized by the politicalscience department of the University of Dallason September 13 of this year, 1995.ON THE SACRED AND THE PROFANE: THE FLAG

DESECRATION AMENDMENT

(By George Anastaplo)‘‘The Senators and Representatives before

mentioned, and the Members of the severalState Legislatures and all executive and ju-dicial Officers both of the United States andof the several States, shall be bound by Oathor Affirmation to support the Constitution;but no religious Test shall ever be requiredas a Qualification to any Office or publicTrust under the United States.’’—The Con-stitution, Article VI.

I

Once upon a time Robert R. McCormick,publisher of the Chicago Tribune, was per-haps the most influential journalist in thiscountry and a leading figure in the conserv-ative wing of the Republican Party, perhapseven as conservative at times as the PoliticsDepartment of this University. He was in un-questioned command of the Tribune, then asnow one of the greatest newspapers in theUnited States. So firm was his control thathe could even institute unilateral reforms inthe spellings of words used in his paper, atleast so long as he lived.

One day (I have heard) Colonel McCormick,while presiding over an editorial board meet-ing at the Tribune Tower on North MichiganAvenue in Chicago, became so incensed withsomething one State’s Legislature had donethat he ordered that State’s star to be imme-diately cut out of the American flag in themain lobby of the Tribune Tower. Of course,the Colonel’s editors were disturbed by thisturn of events, but they knew he was not aman to be contradicted when his passionswere aroused.

Still, one of them did venture to wonderout loud, however deferentially, whetherthere was a law against thus ruling a Stateout of the Union. (I digress for a moment:There is an ironic touch to this story whichprobably no one noticed at the time. TheColonel’s grandfather, who founded the Trib-une, had been a supporter of Abraham Lin-coln, the champion of keeping all of theStates in the Union.) Now back to our story:The Colonel, upon hearing the query aboutthe relevant law, ordered the newspaper’slawyers to be consulted, which was done atonce from the conference room while theTribune board of editors waited.

All of them, including the Colonel, could ofcourse hear the critical question asked from

their end of the telephone conversation thatfollowed: ‘‘Is there any law against cutting astar out of the Flag?’’ The senior partner atthe other end of the line, who must have suf-fered considerably at times as one of theColonel’s lawyers, was so agitated by thisunexpected question that his shouted re-sponse could be heard by everyone in theroom: ‘‘Oh, for Heaven’s sakes, what blastedfool would want to cut a star out of theFlag?!’’ (His language may have been evenstronger than this.) I do not know what hap-pened thereafter either to that lawyer or tothe flag in the Tribune lobby at the hands ofColonel McCormick. I do know that this epi-sode can serve to remind us that the Flagcan be abused in a variety of ways, most ifnot all of them well-intentioned.

The Constitution, too, can be abused attimes. Particularly notorious have been thedecisions by the United States SupremeCourt in the pre-Civil War Dred Scott Case,in the post-Civil War pro-segregation cases,and in a century of challenges to Congress’spower to regulate commerce among theStates. Many today would add to this listthe Court’s abortion decisions in recent dec-ades.

We should not be surprised that the Su-preme Court makes mistakes. We all do, notleast when we act through one or another ofthe branches of our governments. It has al-ways been difficult to determine what shouldbe done about misinterpretations by the Su-preme Court. This question includes theissue of what the authority of the Courtshould be when it reads the Constitution dif-ferently from the other two branches of thenational government. (Less difficult to de-termine is what should happen when the Su-preme Court’s reading of the Constitutiondiffers from the reading by any State govern-ment.)

The American people have, at least untilquite recently, been reluctant to resort toconstitutional amendments in order to cor-rect even obvious judicial misinterpretationsof the Constitution. Of the twenty-sevenamendments which we have had, only four ofthem represent efforts to reverse judicial in-terpretations: the Eleventh Amendment (of1798) with respect to the judicial power of theUnited States, the first sentence in the Four-teenth Amendment (of 1868) with respect to acritical Dred Scott ruling, the SixteenthAmendment (of 1913) with respect to thepower of Congress to levy an income tax, andthe Twenty-sixth Amendment (of 1971) withrespect to eighteen-year-olds suffrage. Theattempt to ratify an amendment (proposedin 1921) empowering Congress to regulatechild labor proved unnecessary when the Su-preme Court reversed itself on this issue. Arelated, but far more important, reversalcame with the Court’s eventual recognitionof a Congressional commerce power whichresurrected the expansive spirit of Chief Jus-tice Marshall with respect to this issue.

During the first decade after the 1973 Roe v.Wade abortion decision, there was serioustalk about a constitutional amendmentreaffirming the long-accepted powers of theStates to regulate abortions. But it soon be-came evident that such an amendment couldnot muster the support it would need eitherin Congress (two-thirds of each house) or inthe States (three-fourths of their legisla-tures). It has also become evident that noconstitutional amendment or law can, in the

face of the self-administered abortion-induc-ing drugs that are becoming available, domuch to impede significantly the recourse toabortions by young women. Those of us whoare troubled by the abortion epidemic, aswell as by the illegitimacy epidemic, in thiscountry should not expect government coer-cion (direct or indirect) to provide the curesthat may be needed. At the root of suchproblems are influential opinions about thegood and the bad, including radical opinionsabout the sanctity of private property andprivacy. The sustained outbreaks of theseepidemics in other parts of the world shouldremind us that neither the Constitution northe Supreme Court’s reading of it is ulti-mately responsible for these problems in ourtime.

One consequence of a technology-basednullification of government power to super-vise abortion and birth-control measuresmay be the involuntary liberation of thosetroubled souls who have long felt, under-standably enough, that they should dedicatethemselves wholeheartedly to political andsocial actions (including constitutionalamendments) so long as it seemed possible todo something about what they consider ter-rible deeds. Now these latter-day Abolition-ists will have to devote themselves almostexclusively to education and social pro-grams, to persuasion, and perhaps above allto prayer in order to deal responsibly withwhat they must still consider a desperatesituation.

II

Even so, there is something touching inthe form that the faith which many have inthe Constitution can take; a change in theConstitution, they seem to believe, can curethis or that distressing problem. They do notrealize that if the Constitution should cometo be readily adapted to changing cir-cumstances it would lose much of its dignityand power. That is, there may well be some-thing to the recent complaint (albeit by apartisan Democratic member of the House ofRepresentatives) that some of her colleaguesare treating the Constitution as though itwere ‘‘a rough draft.’’ (Patricia Schroeder,quoted in Richard E. Cohen, ‘‘In Charge ofConstitutional Change,’’ The National Jour-nal, June 24, 1995, vol. 27, no. 25.)

It can be instructive as well as trouble-some to confront the recent indulgence in at-tempts at constitutional amendments. Invirtually every instance since the 1971 eight-een-year-olds-vote amendment (the Twenty-sixth Amendment), the more strenuously-ad-vocated amendments, if ratified, eitherwould have had no appreciable effect orwould have done considerable harm (in addi-tion to the danger of teaching people to treatthe Constitution like a mere statute).

The most illustrious thus far of these re-cent exercises in constitutional frivolity isone that has been enshrined in the Constitu-tion, the Twenty-seventh Amendment ‘‘rati-fied’’ in 1992, only two hundred and threeyears after it was originally sent out to theStates for ratification by the First Congress.It provides: ‘‘No law varying the compensa-tion for the services of the Senators and Rep-resentatives shall take effect until an elec-tion of Representatives shall have inter-vened.’’ The mode of completing ratificationof this amendment, so long after its original

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1966 October 18, 1995submission to the States, was rather dubi-ous. The official acquiescences in this ‘‘rati-fication’’ reflected an awareness of the popu-lar discontent with Congress at the time.The rule laid down in this amendment is de-fensible—but it was hardly needed in thelight of the general practice of Congress fortwo centuries now of having its pay in-creases take effect for the succeeding Con-gress. Even the Equal Rights Amendmentproposed in 1972, which would have served asa grace note for the Constitution, now seemssuperfluous also. It has been virtually imple-mented in effect by many statutes and judi-cial interpretations on behalf of women. Ourexperience with the proposed Equal RightsAmendment has been somewhat like thatwith the proposed Child Labor Amendmentmore than a half century before.

I have suggested that an Abortion Amend-ment would not ‘‘work,’’ even if it could beratified. The same should be said about theproposed Balanced Budget Amendment.Whether a balanced budget is a good thingfor the country depends in part upon cir-cumstances—but it has long been hard forme to see how a constitutional amendmentwould bring about such balancing. (I havediscussed this matter at length in my con-stitutional commentaries. The best argu-ment for such an amendment that I know isthat Senator Paul Simon, who grew up as Idid in Southern Illinois, has advocated it.)

So much, at least for the time being, forthe amendments that would not work. Thenthere are the proposed amendments thatcould ‘‘work’’—and that we would come toregret in their operations. First, there is aSchool Prayer Amendment. The SupremeCourt may well have been mistaken in its in-terpretations here and elsewhere of the Reli-gion Clauses of the First Amendment sincethe Second World War. But, in our presentcircumstances, legislative or other officialbattles over the appropriate prayers forschool children are not likely to be edifying,especially as demands come to be made forequal time for all kinds of bizarre cults.When Johnny comes home with a hereticalprayer he has been taught at school, to saynothing of a blood-curdling Satanic incanta-tion, his parents’ enthusiasm for schoolprayers is likely to be moderated.

Also likely to be moderated is the enthu-siasm of citizens for term limitations oncethey see what happens when Congress (andhence the country) comes to be run by ama-teurs—or by the bureaucrats and lobbyistsupon whom desperate amateurs will have torely for guidance. It is somewhat reassuringthat the Republican leadership of the cur-rent Congress has had enough sense to recon-sider its 1994 campaign promises with respectto term limitations. This reminds us howmaturity and self-interest can sometimeswork together for the common good.

III

Somewhat immature and hence irrespon-sible, however, has been the current leader-ship’s whooping it up for a Flag DesecrationAmendment, something that has been advo-cated as well, at one time or another, byforty-nine of our State legislatures.

How odd it is that we make as much as wedo now and then of flag desecration. I am re-minded of how some newspapermen in Phila-delphia conducted themselves back in, I be-lieve, the 1930s, perhaps about the time thatColonel McCormick was in his prime in Chi-cago. When things got boring in Philadelphiathey stirred up readers by concocting andpublishing a letter from a self-proclaimedcat-hater who announced that he had takento killing trespassing cats and using them tofertilize his tomato garden. This announce-ment ignited a heated controversy in the‘‘Letters to the Editor’’ section of the news-

paper for weeks thereafter. The more indig-nant cat-lovers did not notice that theiroriginal villain had signed himselfMcMurder. I have been told that it becamean annual exercise for McMurder to stirthings up still another time by publishing aletter which said, in effect, ‘‘You should seemy tomatoes this year!’’

Comparable to the bloodthirsty McMurder,I suppose, is the Supreme Court’s opinion inthe 1989 Johnson v. Texas flag-burning case.That case which originated with a deplorablepolitical protest by one Gregory Lee Johnsonhere in Dallas during the 1984 Republican Na-tional Convention. The Court divided 5 to 4,with something to be said on each side ofthis controversy. (It is intriguing that theconservative Justice Scalia supplied one ofthe voted for Justice Brennan’s Opinion forthe Court invalidating the State law pursu-ant to which Mr. Johnson had been con-victed.) Still, I should say that certain pub-lic acts—like burning flags, conductingstreet marches, and spending large sums ofmoney on political campaigns—are morethan the speech protected by the FirstAmendment, however much they are in-tended to support or even to express politicalsentiments.

Such conduct can be highly provocativeand otherwise disruptive—and as such shouldbe subject to regulation by any governmentproperly concerned about tranquility and po-litical propriety. The flag-burner, in anyevent, should not be surprised by the pas-sions he arouses. (The emotions stirred upare akin to those exhibited in the somewhatdemagogic talk we here from time to timeabout making English the ‘‘official lan-guage’’ in this country.)

However well-intentioned those citizensmay be who propose amendments to insurebalanced budgets, sacrosanct flags, and thelike, the effect of such amendments can bethat of desecrating the Constitution by de-facing it with ill-conceived amendments. Forexample, the Balanced Budget Amendmentproposal currently before Congress is some-thing of an abomination in its draftsman-ship. That, at least, is not the principal prob-lem with the current Flag DesecrationAmendment proposal, which reads simply‘‘The Congress and the States shall havepower to prohibit the physical desecration ofthe flag of the United States.’’ An inventoryof the difficulties with this proposal can wellbegin with the observation there heretoforethe Constitution has been the only thingheld up in the Constitution itself as virtuallysacred, with even an oath to support it pre-scribed by the Framers. Certainly, the Flagwas never thus provided for, however unfor-tunate (if not even insulting and otherwisedespicable) certain conduct directed at theFlag may be. One may even wonder whetherthe way the Flag is promoted at times iscontrary to the spirit of the constitutionalprohibition of religious tests.

IV

A number of serious problems with variousproposed Flag Desecration Amendmentshave been noticed over the years. But thereis one problem that is perhaps the most seri-ous—and it may be revealing of current defi-ciencies in constitutional interpretation andin political philosophy that it is, so far as Iknow, never noticed.

That is, the proposed amendment nowbeing considered by Congress virtually im-plies that all other forms of desecration areto be considered generally immune from anygovernmental supervision. If this amend-ment is regarded as truly necessary to au-thorize legislation prohibiting and punishingflag desecrations, then there can be tacitlyimmunized all other desecrations that theUnited States or the States might want to

continue to regulate (such as hateful speak-ing, the vandalizing of cemeteries, crossburnings, or the defacing of other recognizedreligious symbols). There could be inadvert-ently confirmed, by the implications of aFlag Desecration Amendment, a long-termtendency in this country to deprive the sa-cred of all government support and protec-tion. That is, we are in effect told, in effect,by this amendment that unless governmentis explicitly authorized by the Constitutionto prohibit any particular form of desecra-tion, it cannot do anything about it but mayact against conduct that, say, injuries an-other’s property or threatens an immediatebreach of the peace.

This approach to community life is con-sistent with the tendency, to which manywould-be conservatives are contributing,which threatens to undermine a general re-spect for government. We hear too much talkthese days about what government is doingto us—as if a government is never to be re-garded as the means by which we govern our-selves. This is hardly a prudential approachto keeping modern republicanism healthyand useful.

V

One question that the prudent citizenshould be asking here is whether there is in-deed a serious problem deserving the atten-tion of a constitutional amendment. TheHouse of Representatives has already passedthe current Flag Desecration Amendmentproposal, 312–120. We now have to hope thatthe Senate will be sensible.

What is the harm being addressed by suchan amendment? Perhaps no more than adozen flag-burnings a year—in a bad year.Whether it is a bad year depends, in largepart, upon the publicity available for flag-burners—and that depends, in turn, uponwhether a burning is apt to provoke an in-dictment and then a prosecution. Thus, onepractical effect of the Supreme Court’s 1978decision in Johnson versus Texas has been todiscourage flag-burnings. It is likely, there-fore, that if a Flag Desecration Amendmentshould be ratified there would eventually bemore publicized flag-burnings than we havehad since 1989.

If, however, nothing is done to amend theConstitution here, things will probably re-main as they are now. It should be recog-nized, by the way, that the deliberate flag-burner these days (even if no law can touchhim) does run the risk of being immediatelymanhandled by the citizens in his vicinitythat he dares to offend—and this is probablythe way these matters should be left.

It is odd in any event to be as concerned aswe can be about something so rare and usu-ally so inconsequential as flag-burning whenso much else is permitted to corrupt usunimpeded, beginning with the blatant sex-ual and violent indulgences portrayed by themass media. Symptomatic of this deteriora-tion is the headline in this morning’s DallasMorning News: ‘‘TV, movies test sex’s appealto mainstream audiences: As barriers fall,many wonder, what’s next?’’ (By TomMaurstad and Beth Pinsker, Sept. 17, 1995, p.1A.) Constitutional government cannot beexpected to prosper if our citizen bodyshould be rendered unfit by having its pas-sion and sensibilities twisted out of shape.Once this happens it will not do much good—and indeed may even make matters worse—to rely more and more upon prisons and cap-ital punishment to subject ourselves onceagain to a proper discipline (especially when,as now, our criminal-justice system is over-worked because of a deeply-flawed drugs-con-trol policy). Nor will it do any good, and maymake matters worse, to rely more and moreupon private arsenals to protect ourselvesfrom the consequences of the degradation ofall too many of our fellow citizens.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1967October 18, 1995In critical respects the Pro-Choice people

and the Pro-Guns people share a somewhatnaive reliance upon extremist self-help prin-ciples grounded in uninhibited propertyrights. This sort of thing is reflected as wellin such displays as the shameless advertise-ments (as in this morning’s Parade maga-zine) by tobacco companies which are de-signed to trap impressionable youngsters ina deadly addiction (See ‘‘Your Basic 3-PieceSuit,’’ Parade Magazine, Sept. 17, 1995, p. 20.)A self-respecting, and self-confident, commu-nity should be able to supervise, with a viewto the common good, the uses (private aswell as public) of all of the property that itmakes possible and protects.

VI

Before I conclude these remarks I return,however briefly, to a much-needed lesson inthe proper mode of constitutional interpreta-tion. The Johnson v. Texas decision turned ona reading of the First Amendment. AlthoughI continue to have reservations about thatreading, it should be acknowledged thatthere was something valid in what the ma-jority of the Supreme Court said on that oc-casion. There is a serious First Amendmentproblem whenever only a few of many in-stances of any type of offensive action areselected for prosecution—those few whichare accompanied by, or are understood toconvey, sentiments particularly disliked bythe local prosecutor or by his constituents.

There are lots of offensive things done withthe Flag these days, most of them muchmore serious (if only they are much morepervasive) than what results from a rareflag-burning. We have learned to put up withconsiderable routine abuse of the Flag, muchof it for commercial purposes. (The nearestillustration for us on this campus is whatmay be seen a few hundred yards away fromthis hall—a Texas Stadium representation ofthe Flag with the slogan ‘‘Just Do It’’ defac-ing it.) This epidemic of flag abuse is rathersad, especially when I remember how we usedto cheer the Flag when it appeared in movietheatre newsreels during the Second WorldWar.

Be that as it may, the Congressional pro-ponents of the contemplated Flag Desecra-tion Amendment assure us that it is not in-tended to repeal the First Amendment. Thismeans that critical freedom-of-speech chal-lenges will be posed whenever prosecutorscan be shown to ignore almost all flag dese-crations but those accompanied or express-ing sentiments they find personally offen-sive. Equal protection challenges can also beexpected to highly selective enforcement ofState laws.

Traffic laws, for example, are clearly con-stitutional. Yet the policeman who stopsonly those speeders displaying bumper stick-ers he does not like can expect to have hispolicy of selective enforcement seriouslychallenged on several constitutionalgrounds. The fact that there is a constitu-tional amendment authorizing a general en-forcement policy may not matter. We oncehad a Prohibition Amendment—but if a pros-ecutor had enforced prohibition laws onlyagainst his political opponents substantialconstitutional challenges should have beenexpected.

All this is aside from the technical prob-lems of what ‘‘the flag of the United States’’should be taken to mean and how ‘‘physicaldesecration’’ should be understood. What, forexample, can be done with a protester whodisplays a flag that is canceled like the flagswe are accustomed to seeing on postagestamps—or with a protester who burns pub-licly such a blow-up (but even larger) as Ihave provided you this evening of canceledflag-decorated postage stamps? Would itmatter if the burning was of uncancelled

flag-stamp blow-ups? So much then, at leastfor the time being, for this lesson in con-stitutional interpretation—and in the limits,as well as the merits, of reliance upon con-stitutions to cure our ills.

The perspective from which I have at-tempted to speak on this occasion has beenthat of the informed and responsible citizen.At times, of course, the responsible citizencan be disheartened, especially as he ob-serves how determined all too many of his nodoubt patriotic fellow citizens can be toplunge ahead with amendments that woulddisfigure if not even derail the Constitution.If things get bad enough, with a constitu-tional pile-up threatened, the powerless stu-dent of such appallingly interesting matterscan at least console himself with a storythat Lyndon Johnson used to tell:

‘‘There was a fellow in Johnson City whowanted to be a district engineer. To testhim, the boss asked what he would do if hesaw two trains coming at each other on asingle track at 60 miles an hour. The fellowthought about it for a while and said, ‘I’d gohome and get my brother.’

‘‘ ‘Why would you do that?’ The boss asked.‘‘ ‘My brother ain’t even seen a train

wreck,’ he said.’’(Liz Carpenter, ed., ‘‘LBJ: Images of a Vi-brant Life’’ [Austin, Texas: The Friends ofthe LBJ Library, 1973], p. 14) We can wonderwhether Mr. Johnson ever consoled himselfin turn with at least having had a ringsideseat for the train-wreck of a war that he(with perhaps the most patriotic of inten-tions) stumbled into a Southeast Asia, aquestionable war that also contributed bothto the disfigurement of the Constitution andto the demoralization of the American peo-ple.

VII

I have used the current Flag DesecrationAmendment campaign to suggest what theConstitution should mean to us. In this way,at least, even this misguided campaign canbe put to salutary use.

Much of what I have said this eveningabout how the Constitution needs to betreated should have long been apparent tothe more mature members of Congress. Theyshould know that a cheap form of patriotismis being indulged in by some of their amend-ments-hungry colleagues at the risk of dese-crating the Constitution itself. All thisshould remind us of how a disciplined andsensible legislative body operates. For onething, it keeps certain excesses safely undercontrol in its committees, having learnedlong ago how public opinion can be misled.

I presume to pay special tribute to onemember of the House of Representatives, aDemocrat from Indiana (Andrew Jacobs),who tried last January to salvage somethingfrom his colleagues’ recent stampede by of-fering to add to the Flag DesecrationAmendment the provision that the spendingof money for the election of public officialsno longer be considered constitutionally-pro-tected speech either. (See 141 CONGRESSIONALRECORD H176, January 4, 1995.) He remindedus thereby of still another unfortunate FirstAmendment reading by the Supreme Court,its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. That rul-ing undermined what Congress had tried todo, a generation ago, to control campaign fi-nancing in this country. I continue to be-lieve that the First Amendment should notbe understood to keep us from experimentingwith reasonable measures to prevent ourelections from being bought or from seemingto be bought by excessive expenditures offunds, whether by private persons, by cor-porations, unions, and other organizations,or by the government itself.

But even the serious mistake by the Su-preme Court in the Buckley Case does not

warrant a constitutional amendment. RatherCongress should try again and again—and wein turn should all try to help the Court torecognize what it too truly wants to recog-nize; the true reading of the Constitution.

In this worthy enterprise in civic edu-cation, the Politics Department of the Uni-versity of Dallas should continue to beamong the leaders in our country today. Youare to be congratulated for celebrating Con-stitution Day as you do, with both playfulfestivities and serious talk, reminding usthereby that the Constitution depends uponand ministers to both the high and the low.Such a celebration, you also know, is mostmeaningful when it can include an examina-tion of what the Constitution does and doesnot say. It is to such an examination, atleast in part, that we have dedicated our-selves on this inspiring occasion.

f

CENTERFORCE 20TH ANNIVERSARYTRIBUTE

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEYOF CALIFORNIA



Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to Centerforce which is celebratingits 20th anniversary of service to hundreds ofthousands of families all over California. Thisunique community-based organization pro-vides both direct and indirect services to pris-on visitors including children and families of in-carcerated parents at 29 centers serving 34State prisons and 1 youth facility. Over350,000 visitors benefit from this innovativeprogram each year.

Centerforce is the statewide extension ofThe House at San Quentin which was estab-lished by Seamus Kilty and supported byCatholic Social Services of Marin. It has con-tinuously served prison visitors since 1971. In1975 Centerforce was envisioned to create astatewide network of visitor centers modeledafter The House. Under the leadership ofMaureen Fenlon, O.P., the first executive di-rector, and with the cooperation of the localcommunities, visitor centers were establishedat each prison so that all families of prisonerscould receive basic support services nec-essary to keep their family together. Theseservices include transportation, child care, re-freshments, crisis intervention, prison visitoradvocacy, special education programs, sum-mer camps for the children, and simply protec-tion from inclement weather for the travelingfamilies.

Mr. Speaker, Centerforce is a nationalmodel of the collaboration we need betweengovernment, community organizations, and in-dividuals to nurture and support the family unitespecially at times of separation when theyare more vulnerable. As we know, every pris-on inmate is a family member who will be re-turning to that family in the future. We allvalue the family as the most essential unit inour society. It takes just a short-term invest-ment in these families, and especially in theirchildren, to keep the family ties strong andthereby lowering the recidivism rate in the longterm. I commend Centerforce for the majorcontribution it has made to the preservation ofthousands of families throughout Californiaand our country who have benefited from thisvisionary, compassionate, yet very down-to-earth program.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1968 October 18, 1995Although Centerforce is a statewide organi-

zation, I take pride in its accomplishments be-cause it was created and is located in the con-gressional district I am privileged to represent.f

HONORING DR. EDWARD H.BERSOFF

HON. THOMAS M. DAVISOF VIRGINIA

HON. FRANK R. WOLFOF VIRGINIA

HON. JAMES P. MORANOF VIRGINIA



Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues andI rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Edward H.Bersoff who will be honored on October 20,1995 by the Northern Virginia CommunityFoundation [NVCF] for all his contributions toimproving the quality of life in northern Vir-ginia.

The Northern Virginia Community Founda-tion is a community endowment that supportsthe arts, education, health, community im-provement, and youth issues. The foundationdoes not duplicate efforts of existing charitableorganizations, but assists ongoing communityprojects and specific programs of establishedgroups. Contributions are used only for localneeds and provide a reserve fund to meet un-foreseen critical emergencies. The foundationis managed by a board of directors represent-ing all areas of northern Virginia.

Dr. Edward H. Bersoff, president, CEO, andfounder of BTG, Inc., is a pioneer in the tech-nology community. He founded BTG in 1982and reported a revenue of $156 million in itsmost recent fiscal year. BTG also employs650 people, the majority in northern Virginia.Dr. Bersoff is well known in northern Virginia,where he serves as chairman of the FairfaxCounty Chamber of Commerce and on the in-formation technology advisory group for theFairfax County government. He was the firstchairman of the Northern Virginia TechnologyCouncil and chaired the technology workgroup of the Virginia Economic RecoveryCommission. Dr. Bersoff also serves onboards of the Washington Airports Task Force,the Inova Health Care Services Board, andthe advisory council of the Minority BusinessAssociation of Northern Virginia. In addition,he is past president of the Northern VirginiaCommunity College Educational Foundationand was a member of the board of directorsof Virgina’s Center for Innovative Technology.

He served on the Navy C3I Subcommitteeof the National Security Industrial Association,chairs the Professional Services Council andis a senior member of the Institute for Elec-trical and Electronics Engineers. Dr. Bersoff isalso the director of the Armed Forces Commu-nications and Electronics Association.

A longtime supporter of education, Dr.Bersoff received his A.B., M.S., and Ph.D. de-grees in mathematics from New York Univer-sity and is a graduate of the Harvard BusinessSchool Owned/President Management Pro-gram. He taught mathematics at KingsboroughCommunity College in New York, Northeasternand Boston Universities in Massachusetts, andthe American University in Washington, DC.He coauthored one of the first textbooks on

the technology of Software Configuration Man-agement.

Dr. Bersoff received the 1993 Northern Vir-ginia Technology Council Leadership in Tech-nology Award and was named one of the1994 Washington Area Entrepreneurs of theYear.

His wife Marilynn is vice president of admin-istration at BTG, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, we know our colleagues joinus in honoring Dr. Edward H. Bersoff on hisleadership in the technology community andhis outstanding accomplishments in northernVirgina.

f

TRIBUTE TO TOM KERR

HON. WILLIAM J. COYNEOF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to a man who has been a commit-ted defender of personal freedom and con-stitutional rights. This dedicated individual, Mr.Tom Kerr, has been an influential leader of theGreater Pittsburgh Chapter of the AmericanCivil Liberties Union for almost 40 years.

Tom Kerr’s many years of service will becelebrated in Pittsburgh at a dinner gala onOctober 25, 1995. He will be honored for hisservice to the community, for his personal sac-rifice and commitment, and for his devotion tocivil liberties.

Mr. Kerr helped revive the Pittsburgh chap-ter of the ACLU in 1956 and served for yearsas the leader of this organization. From 1964to 1984, he chaired the Pennsylvania ACLUaffiliate and served on the national board ofthe ACLU. Mr. Kerr once gave up a partner-ship in a promising private practice rather thangive in to pressure from his colleagues toabandon his work with the ACLU. Since then,he has taught at the Duquesne UniversitySchool of Law and the Graduate School of In-dustrial Administration of Carnegie Mellon Uni-versity while working actively for the ACLU.He has also served on the Pittsburgh HumanRelations Commission and the Pittsburgh pub-lic employees’ Personnel Appeals Board. Heis still active today as an associate professorat CMU and as a member of the board of theACLU’s Pittsburgh chapter and the ACLU’sNational Advisory Council.

Mr. Kerr’s legal activities on behalf of theACLU has included cases in support of thecivil rights movement, affirmative action, con-scientious objectors resisting conscription dur-ing the Vietnam war, and union protestors. Hehas worked tirelessly to challenge the legalityof racial- and gender-based discrimination, toguarantee the separation of church and state,and to defend individuals’ rights to equal pro-tection and individual privacy. In short, he hasbeen active in many, if not all, of the mostcontentious and important constitutional issuesof our times. More importantly, he has beenon the right side of those issues.

I join the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of theACLU in celebrating Tom Kerr’s commitmentto the defense of our precious civil liberties,and in thanking him for his many years ofdedicated service to this cause and to theACLU.

TRIBUTE TO THE CITY OFCLAWSON

HON. SANDER M. LEVINOF MICHIGAN



Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, from October 23–29, 1995, the city of Clawson, MI, will againhold a red ribbon celebration in its continuingeffort to eliminate the illegal use of drugs inschools, homes, and places of work.

This year’s theme, ‘‘Be Healthy and DrugFree,’’ has been imprinted on the red ribbonswhich will be worn by adults and children asa symbol of their personal commitment to re-maining drug free. At the end of the week.Clawson participants in the celebration willsign their ribbons and send them to Congress.I am honored to be the intended recipient ofthe Clawson ribbons again this year.

The red ribbon celebration encourages thecommunity to address drugs as a serious soci-etal problem and especially to reinforce Claw-son youth with the knowledge that their peersare drug free. The campaign, therefore, com-bats the pressure on school children to experi-ment with drugs, and demonstrates that illegaldrug use is not tolerated by our society.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the action of the cityof Clawson to reduce illegal drug use inschools and in the workplace, and lend my fullsupport to the red ribbon celebration.

f

TRIBUTE TO BILL BUTLER ON HISRETIREMENT

HON. PAUL E. GILLMOROF OHIO



Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to takethis opportunity to pay tribute to an outstand-ing citizen of Ohio and a good friend. WilliamE. Butler, chairman of the board of EatonCorp., will retire from that position this year.

Bill Bulter joined Eaton in 1957 as assistantemployee relations manager of theDyanamatic Division. Over the years, he hasbeen a creative, innovative, and reliable leaderin the Cleveland business community. Direct-ing a global corporation with over $6.1 billionin sales is no easy task. Eaton’s reputation asa manufacturer of quality engineered productsis due in large measure to Bill’s dedicationand professionalism.

In addition to his tremendous business ex-pertise. Bill has also given nearly four decadesto bettering his community. Whether as amember of the board of directors of ClevelandTomorrow and the Greater Cleveland, or asthe 1994 United Way general campaign chair-man, Bill has always earned the respect of hispeers. I hope he enjoys a retirement that is asfulfilling and rewarding as his career.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join mein congratulating Bill Butler for his numerousachievements over the years, and I wish himand his family all the best in the years ahead.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1969October 18, 1995TRIBUTE TO DR. THOMAS

MONTEIRO

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNSOF NEW YORK



Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today torecognize the contributions of Dr. ThomasMonteiro. Dr. Monteiro serves as the depart-ment head of the Advance Certificate Programin Education Administration and Supervision atBrooklyn College of the City University of NewYork. He formerly served as the director of thePrincipal’s Center at Brooklyn College.

Dr. Monteiro has worked diligently and pas-sionately to improve educational programs,with a particular emphasis on designing pro-gram evaluations for school districts.

This distinguished gentleman graduatedfrom the New York City school system andhas received degrees from Winston-SalemState University, Queens College of the CityUniversity of New York, and Fordham Univer-sity.

Active in community and political affairs, Dr.Monteiro served as the former president of theJamaica, Queens branch of the NAACP. Onecrowning achievement among many in his life,was being named the recipient of the 1988Educator of the Year award by the Associationof Black Educators in New York City. I amproud to highlight the accomplishments of Dr.Monteiro.

f

A BILL TO AMEND THE ALASKANATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENTACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

HON. DON YOUNGOF ALASKA



Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ampleased to introduce a bill to amend the Alas-ka Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 atthe request of the Alaska Federation of Na-tives. This bill is the result of the work of thelegislative council of the Alaska Federation ofNatives to correct existing technical problemswith the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act[ANCSA]. I am introducing the bill to begin thereview process and to receive input of theState of Alaska, various Federal agencies, Na-tive entities, and individuals affected by thisbill. I fully expect the input process to refineand expand the legislation, and invite suchinput.

I expect to work closely with GEORGE MIL-LER, my ranking minority member to resolveany differences we may have with specificprovisions in the bill. Further, we look forwardto receiving further suggestions for additionsto this package and working with Alaska Sen-ators TED STEVENS and FRANK MURKOWSKI toperfect the package. Ultimately, it is our inten-tion to investigate and resolve controversialprovisions which would prevent final passageof this bill.

This bill makes a number of technicalchanges to ANCSA which addresses issuesnot anticipated at the time of passage ofANCSA. As the legislation is designed to re-solve specific problems, it contains severalprovisions, and will probably contain more as

a result of the hearing and input process. Tooffer a flavor of the nature of the legislation, afew illustrations are in order.

For example, the bill would reinstate ap-proximately 50,000 acres which were takenaway by an Executive order in 1929 to theElim Native Corp. This provision would rein-state and allow the Elim Native Corp. to re-ceive their land entitlement selections.

Another provision would extend the exemp-tion period from estate and gift tax for stockthrough its period of inalienability.

Another would amend ANCSA to correct aninconsistency in current Federal law by allow-ing regional corporations to elect to acquireoil, gas, and coal estates reserved to the Fed-eral Government beneath native allotmentssurrounded by or adjacent to subsurface landsconvey to the corporations pursuant to section12(a) or (b) of ANCSA.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill at this time tobegin the process of reviewing each of theseimportant provisions and others which affectAlaskans. I welcome input to add to, subtractfrom and amend this proposal so that a non-controversial substitute may be offered at alater date.

f

CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS

HON. MARCY KAPTUROF OHIO



Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I introducetoday a constitutional amendment that would,for the first time, allow Congress and theStates to set reasonable limits on campaignexpenditures.

This amendment is necessary becausecampaign spending in our country is out ofcontrol. An estimated $540 million was spenton all elections in the United States in 1976—but by 1992, the amount spent had grown to$3 billion. And in the last House and Senateelections, a total of $724 million was spent—up more than 60 percent just since 1990. Can-didates and elected officials have become pro-fessional beggars.

Our Nation’s elected representatives spendtoo little time doing the people’s business, andtoo much time raising campaign funds. Yet theSupreme Court has ruled, in the case of Buck-ley versus Valeo, that campaign spending lim-its are an unconstitutional infringement on po-litical expression. My amendment wouldchange that by making it clear—as similar leg-islation introduced in the Senate by SenatorHOLLINGS would do—that Congress and theStates are free to enact reasonable limits onelection expenditures.

I had hoped that a constitutional amend-ment would not be necessary. But campaignfinance reform was conspicuously missingfrom the Republican Contract With America.And despite the Speaker’s telegenic hand-shake with President Clinton in New Hamp-shire, where he vowed to develop a bipartisancommission to recommend changes to oursystem of financing campaigns, the Speakerhas now backed off this issue.

But this issue is too important to ignore. Ifpassed, my amendment will go a long way to-ward rebuilding the public trust in our domesticsystem of government. To ensure that ourGovernment is truly ‘‘of the people, for the

people, and by the people,’’ we must end thecurrent practice of allowing elections to bebought by the highest bidder.

f

H.R. 1715

HON. FRED HEINEMANOF NORTH CAROLINA



Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise instrong support of H.R. 1715. The workers’compensation system was established to pro-vide relief to injured employees in exchangefor limited liability for the employer. Unfortu-nately, on March 21, 1990, the SupremeCourt, in the case of Adams Fruit versusBarrett, ruled that an employee covered underthe Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural WorkerProtection Act [MSPA] could collect workers’compensation and still bring a private right ofaction.

The decision in Adams Fruit places agricul-tural employers as the only employers inAmerica who can be sued by their employeesas a result of workplace injuries even wherethey have provided workers’ compensation.This is unfair to our farmers, especially inthose States where agricultural employers arerequired to participate in the workers’ com-pensation system.

I am proud to say that I am a cosponsor ofH.R. 1715 and strongly support this legislation.When Congress passed MSPA, it did not in-tend for it to replace the workers’ compensa-tion system.

Everyone wants to ensure that migrant andseasonal workers’ rights are protected andH.R. 1715 does just that. North Carolina isone of the leading agricultural States in ourNation. Farmers in North Carolina and otherStates should not be singled out and treatedany differently from other employers who pro-vide workers’ compensation. H.R. 1715 cor-rects this inequity. I urge my colleagues tovote ‘‘yes’’ on this bipartisan legislation. Ourfarmers deserve no less.

f

EXTENDING CERTAIN VETERANS’AFFAIRS HEALTH AND MEDICALCARE EXPIRING AUTHORITIES

SPEECH OF

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMANOF NEW YORK


Tuesday, October 17, 1995

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongsupport of H.R. 2353 and to commend thegentleman from Arkansas, Mr. HUTCHINSON forhis efforts to being this legislation to the floorof Congress. H.R. 2353 will extend spendingauthority for numerous Health Care and hous-ing programs that aid our Nation’s veterans.

In specific terms, this measure extends theVeterans Administration’s authority to providehealth care on a priority basis to Persian Gulfveterans, while extensive research continueson the causes and treatment of these ill-nesses. In addition, this bill extends the VA’s

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1970 October 18, 1995authority to first, contract for substance abusecare and rehabilitative services at non-VA half-way houses and treatment centers; second,continue the pilot program providing homenursing care to eligible veterans as an alter-native to institutional care; third, continue theVA’s Health Scholarship Program which pro-vides funding for health care professionalstudies in return for VA service obligation;fourth, carry on the compensated work therapyand Therapeutic Transitional Housing Dem-onstration Program, helping mentally ill veter-ans to make a re-entry into independent living;and fifth, to continue VA’s pilot program to as-sist homeless veterans.

This bill allows us to continue to pursue newand proven avenues to assist those who haverisked their lives to preserve the freedoms thatwe hold so dear. This legislation enables us tolend a hand to those who have suffered great-ly as a result of their service. I welcome thisopportunity to speak on their behalf. Accord-ingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R.2353.

f

ST. MARY’S BICENTENNIAL

HON. ROBERT K. DORNANOF CALIFORNIA



Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, St. Mary’sCatholic parish in Old Town Alexandria, VA, iscelebrating its 200th anniversary, founded in1795 when there were a mere 25,000 Catho-lics in the colonies and only 200 in the Stateof Virginia.

Col. John Fitzgerald, the mayor of Alexan-dria and aide-de-camp to George Washington,headed the drive to establish St. Mary’s, whichis the oldest Catholic parish in the State of Vir-ginia. In 1869, the Sisters of the Holy Crossbegan St. Mary’s School, which today hasover 600 students and is still growing.

Today, the Reverend Stanley Krempaserves as pastor for this parish of 3,200 fami-lies. The church is just completing a $2 millionfund-raising campaign that has seen to therestoration of the main church on South RoyalStreet, and the addition of more classrooms atthe school on nearby Green Street.

The bicentennial celebration will close onNovember 2, 1995, All Souls Day, when theMost Reverend Agostino Cacciavillan, the Ap-ostolic Nuncio from Rome, celebrates a Massin honor of all deceased parishioners.

Mr. Speaker, I pause to congratulate St.Mary’s on their 200th anniversary.

f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. TOM LATHAMOF IOWA



Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, due to priorcommitments in my district, I was not presentfor rollcall votes Nos. 714, 715, and 716 onOctober 17, 1995. Had I been present:

I would have voted ‘‘yea’’ on rollcall vote714 on approving the Journal;

I would have voted ‘‘yea’’ on rollcall vote715—providing for U.S. distribution of ‘‘TheFragile Ring of Life’’ film; and

I would have voted ‘‘yea’’ on rollcall vote716—extending certain veterans’ affairs healthand medical care expiring authorities.

f

PROCTER & GAMBLE RECEIVES1995 NATIONAL MEDAL OF TECH-NOLOGY

HON. ROB PORTMANOF OHIO



Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to Procter & Gamble, based in Cin-cinnati, OH, which was recently named as arecipient of the U.S. Government’s 1995 Na-tional Medal of Technology.

Procter & Gamble will be recognized at aWhite House ceremony on October 18, 1995,for creating, developing, and applying ad-vanced technologies to consumer productsthat have strengthened the economy whilehelping to improve the quality of life for con-sumers worldwide. Procter & Gamble has a160-year history of introducing cutting-edgeproducts on which Americans have come todepend—products such as Ivory soap, Cresttoothpaste, and Tide detergent. Becausethese products are so familiar, we often over-look the advanced research and technologybehind their development.

The National Medal of Technology is award-ed to innovators and forward-thinking tech-nology companies that have built new indus-tries and fostered U.S. competitiveness. Es-tablished in 1980, the medal program is ad-ministered by the U.S. Department of Com-merce’s Technology Administration and thePresident provides final approval. Since theprogram’s inception, 5 companies, 13 teams,and 57 individuals have been honored.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to commend Proc-ter & Gamble for this recognition of their ex-cellence and congratulate them for making adifference in the lives of Americans.

f

TRIBUTE TO MARTHA MOORE

HON. PAUL E. GILLMOROF OHIO



Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay tribute to a special friend and an outstand-ing citizen of Ohio. On October 23, friends ofMartha C. Moore will gather in her belovedMuskingum College in New Concord, OH, tohonor her lifelong commitment to Americanpolitics, education, and her community.

I had the privilege of working with Marthafor many years while I was a member of theOhio State Senate. Miss Moore was first elect-ed to the Ohio Republican State Central andExecutive Committee in 1950 and she cur-rently serves as the committee person fromthe 18th District. She has previously served asthe committee person from the 15th and 17thDistrict. Miss Moore’s dedicated work was cru-cial to Republicans in gaining control of theState senate in 1980.

While serving as a professor of speech atMuskingum College, she helped shape thelives of generations of students through herthoughtful tutelage. In 1986, Miss Moore was

awarded the Distinguished Alumni Award fromMuskingum College.

Throughout her many years in politics, Mar-tha has demonstrated her deep faith in, anddedication to, upholding the principles ofAmerican democracy. The status of the Re-publican Party in Ohio today has been se-cured by Martha’s dedication and her reputa-tion as a political wizard. Yet, she consistentlydeflects personal praise, focusing instead onthe team effort involved in election campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, we have often heard thatAmerica works because of the unselfish con-tributions of her citizens. I know Ohio is amuch better place to live because of the dedi-cation and countless hours of service givenover the years by Martha.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying aspecial tribute to Martha Moore’s record ofpersonal accomplishments.f

TRIBUTE TO DAVID W. FLEMING

HON. HOWARD L. BERMANOF CALIFORNIA



Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored topay tribute to David Fleming, my good friendwho this year has been chosen by the Anti-Defamation League to receive the distin-guished community service award. The ADLcould not have made a better choice. Davidhas taken a leadership role in many importantareas important to the San Fernando Valley.He truly cares for his community.

It is hard to imagine how David, a seniorpartner with the prestigious law firm of Latham& Watkins, finds time to take on his manyadded responsibilities. For example, David isthe current president of the board of fire com-missioners for the city of Los Angeles as wellas the vice chair of the Los Angeles CountyChildren’s Planning Council. He has alsoserved on three different county commissions.

David’s tireless work for his community re-flects his many interests. He has been a mem-ber of the board of the Automobile Club ofSouthern California, Valley Presbyterian Hos-pital, the Valley Industry and Commerce Asso-ciation [VICA], the National Council of Chris-tians and Jews and Big Brothers of GreaterLos Angeles.

Not surprisingly, David has been the recipi-ent of awards from many sources. He has re-ceived the Fernando award, the tree of lifeaward from the Jewish National Fund and, in1967, he was named ‘‘One of California’s FiveOutstanding Young Men’’ by the CaliforniaJaycees. Many people and organizations havebenefited from David’s efforts and generosity.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in sa-luting David Fleming, a man of intellect, com-passion, and dedication to his community.f

TRIBUTE TO DOLLY RIVERA FOR50 YEARS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE

HON. ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRESOF CALIFORNIA



Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today topay special tribute to Ms. Dolly Rivera. Ms. Ri-vera has given 50 years of volunteer service

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1971October 18, 1995to her community. Through the years, she hastouched the lives of many with her involve-ment with groups such as the American RedCross, Civil Defense, March of Dimes, UnitedWay, Los Angeles County Parks and Recre-ation, Girl Scouts, Women of the Moose, andParent Teacher Association.

In 1945, Ms. Rivera joined the ParentTeacher Association [PTA] and begun herdedicated service as a volunteer. In the class-room of the Bassett Unified School District, inLa Puente, CA, she touched the lives of manystudents. In 1962, Ms. Rivera was presentedwith the honorary service award for her workin establishing a dental health program for thechildren of the La Puente area.

Ms. Rivera’s leadership in the communityhas been demonstrated over the years in herservice as president of the Erwin PTA, BassettHigh School Parent Teacher Association, andher service as council president three times. Inlight of this leadership, Ms. Rivera was instru-mental in implementing bilingual andmulticultural programs for all students.

Through the Women of the Moose, Ms. Ri-vera has worked to ensure that all studentshave the opportunity to finance their collegeeducation. Under Ms. Rivera’s leadership the‘‘C’’ scholarship was established to provide forthis need. Concerned for the safety of our chil-dren, in 1980 Ms. Rivera organized OperationStay in School for Bassett Unified School Dis-trict. This program addressed the safety con-cerns of our schools, by enforcing a closedcampus. Parents were utilized in supervisionof lunch periods and the campus gates. Orga-nizing the efforts of parents, school boardmembers, the superintendent, the sheriffs de-partment and the city council of La Puenteproved highly effective in deterring truancies,vandalism, and violence.

Ms. Rivera has done many great things forher community. She has organized afingerprinting program for the kindergarten stu-dents, operates a ‘‘Clothes Closet,’’ whichbenefits needy children and the homeless andcollects food and donations to distribute tofamilies in need. Ms. Rivera’s compassionalso has been extended to the senior citizensin her community. Every Thursday, for manyyears, Ms. Rivera has delivered food with careto bedridden seniors.

For 27 years, Ms. Rivera also has providedvolunteer work with the Girl Scouts of Amer-ica. She has volunteered as a Girl Scout lead-er of two troops and has been the first andsecond vice-president of the El Monte/LaPuente Council of Girl Scouts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join mein saluting this truly inspirational American anda fine citizen, whose community service pro-vides an example to all.

f

SUPPORT INCLUSION OF REPUBLICOF CHINA IN THE UNITED NA-TIONS

HON. PETER T. KINGOF NEW YORK



Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, October 10 markedthe 84th anniversary of the founding of theRepublic of China. Normally, this day ismarked here in Washington by a number ofsocial events. However this year, there is a

more important reason for us to recognize theevents in China in 1911. As all the world cansee, it is only under a democratic system thatTaiwan has been able to flourish economicallyand socially. In fact, over the last decade theRepublic of China has become one of theworld’s leading economic powers.

To help recognize the achievements ofAmerica’s friends on Taiwan, I urge my col-leagues here in the Congress to support theRepublic of China’s bid to gain membership inthe United Nations. Although a member ofseveral international organizations, the Repub-lic of China has been refused a seat in theUnited Nations. Very simply, the exclusion ofthe Republic of China is an outrageous denialof a voice on important international issues tothe people of a thriving democracy. I knowthat Representative Benjamin Lu has workedtirelessly for the last year on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way forthis institution to show support for the demo-cratic ideals found in the Republic of Chinathan to support its inclusion in the United Na-tions.f

H.R. 2494, THRIFT CHARTERCONVERSION TAX ACT OF 1995

HON. BILL ARCHEROF TEXAS



Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am in-troducing the Thrift Charter Conversion TaxAct of 1995, with JAMES A. LEACH, the chair-man of the Banking and Financial ServicesCommittee, and MARGE ROUKEMA, the chair-woman of the Financial Institutions andConsumer Credit Subcommittee, as originalcosponsors. The three of us have worked to-gether to identify and address potential taxconsequences raised by the Banking Commit-tee’s proposal to require thrifts to convert theircharters into bank charters. This bill is a prod-uct of our efforts.

Requiring thrifts to convert to banks raisesseveral banking, tax, housing, and accountingpolicy issues. It is not easy to reconcile thesesometimes competing policies. Nonetheless, itis clear that the thrift charter conversion pro-posal must contain transitional tax relief cush-ioning the blow to thrifts required to convert tobanks. This bill is intended to modify the taxlaws to permit the conversion of thrifts tobanks, consistent with the policies behind thethrift charter conversion proposal, and in amanner that is fair to the thrifts and consistentwith our deficit reduction goals.

The following is a technical explanation ofthe provisions of the bill.

TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF THE THRIFTCHARTER CONVERSION TAX ACT OF 1995

1. Repeal ‘‘percentage of taxable income’’method for the calculation of bad debt de-ductions by thrift institutions.

PRESENT LAW AND BACKGROUND

Tax treatment of bad debt deductions of savingsinstitutions—reserve methods of accountingfor bad debts of thrift institutionsA taxpayer engaged in a trade or business

may deduct the amount of any debt that be-comes wholly or partially worthless duringthe year (the ‘‘specific charge-off’’ method).Certain thrift institutions (building and loanassociations, mutual savings banks, or coop-erative banks) are allowed deductions for

bad debts under rules more favorable thanthose granted to other taxpayers (and morefavorable than the rules applicable to otherfinancial institutions). Qualified thrift insti-tutions are eligible to compute deductionsfor bad debts using either the specificcharge-off method or the reserve method ofsection 593. To qualify for this reserve meth-od, a thrift institution must meet an assettest, requiring that 60 percent of its assetsconsist of ‘‘qualifying assets’’ (generallycash, government obligations, and loans se-cured by residential real property). This per-centage must be computed at the close of thetaxable year, or at the option of the tax-payer, as the annual average of monthly,quarterly, or semiannual computations ofsimilar percentages.

If a thrift institution uses the reservemethod of accounting for bad debts, it mustestablish and maintain a reserve for baddebts, charge actual losses against the re-serve, and is allowed a deduction for annualadditions to restore the reserve to its properbalance. Under section 593, a thrift institu-tion may elect, each year, to calculate itsannual addition to its bad debt reserve undereither (1) the ‘‘percentage of taxable in-come’’ method applicable only to thrift in-stitutions, or (2) the ‘‘experience’’ methodalso used by small banks.

Under the percentage of taxable incomemethod, a thrift institution generally mayclaim as a deduction an addition to its baddebt reserve for an amount equal to 8 per-cent of its taxable income (determined with-out regard to this deduction and with addi-tional adjustments). Under the experiencemethod, a thrift institution generally is al-lowed a deduction for an addition to its baddebt reserve equal to the greater of: (1) anamount based on its actual average experi-ence for losses in the current and five preced-ing taxable years, or (2) an amount necessaryto restore the reserve to its balance as of theclose of the base year. For taxable years be-ginning before 1988, the ‘‘base year’’ was thelast taxable year before the most recentadoption of the experience method (i.e., gen-erally, the last year the taxpayer was on thepercentage of taxable income method). Pur-suant to a provision contained in the TaxReform Act of 1986, for taxable years begin-ning after 1987, the base year is the last tax-able year beginning before 1988. The baseyear amount is reduced to the extent thatthe taxpayer’s loan portfolio decreases. Com-puting bad debts under a ‘‘base year’’ con-cept allows a thrift institution to claim a de-duction for bad debts for an amount at leastequal to the institution’s actual losses thatwere incurred during the taxable year.

Bad debt methods of commercial banksA small commercial bank (i.e., one with an

adjusted basis of assets of $500 million orless) only may use the experience method orthe specific charge-off method for purposesof computing its deduction for bad debts. Alarge commercial bank must use the specificcharge-off method. If a small bank becomesa large bank, it must recapture its existingbad debt reserve (i.e., include the amount ofthe reserve in income) through one of twomethods. Under the 4-year recapture method,the bank generally includes 10 percent of thereserve in income in the first taxable year, 20percent in the second year, 30 percent in thethird year, and 40 percent in the fourth year.Alternatively, a bank may elect the cut-offmethod. Under the cut-off method, the bankneither restores its bad debt reserve to in-come nor may it deduct actual losses relat-ing to loans held by the bank as of the dateof the required change in the method of ac-counting. Rather, the amount of such lossesare charged against and reduce the existingbad debt reserve; any losses in excess of thereserve are deductible.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1972 October 18, 1995

1 The requirement of the proposed regulations thata thrift institution recapture its bad debt reservesupon a change in the method of its accounting forbad debts is based on Nash v. U.S., 398 U.S. 1 (1970),where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a taxpayeressentially was required to recapture its bad debt re-serve when the related accounts receivable weretransferred by the taxpayer.

Recapture of bad debt reserves by thriftinstitutions

If a thrift institution become, a commer-cial bank, or if the institution fails to satisfythe 60-percent qualified asset test, the insti-tution is required to change its method ofaccounting for bad debts and, under proposedTreasury regulations, is required to recap-ture its bad debt reserve.1 The percentage oftaxable income portion of the reserve gen-erally is included in income ratably over a 6-taxable year period. The experience methodportion of the reserve is not restored to in-come if the former thrift institution quali-fied as a small bank. If the former thrift in-stitution is treated as a large bank, the expe-rience method portion of the reserve is re-stored to income either ratably over a 6-tax-able year period, or under the 4-year recap-ture method described above.

In addition, a thrift institution may besubject to a form of reserve recapture even ifthe institution continues to qualify for thepercentage of taxable income method. Spe-cifically, if a thirft institution distributes toits shareholders an amount in excess of itspost-1951 earnings and profits, such excesswill be deemed to be distributed from the in-stitution’s bad debt reserve and must be re-stored to income (sec. 593(e)).Financial accounting treatment of tax reserves

of bad debts of thrift institutionsIn general, for financial accounting pur-

poses, a corporation must record a deferredtax liability with respect to items that aredeductible for tax purposes in a period ear-lier than they are expensed for book pur-poses. The deferred tax liability signifiesthat, although a corporation may be reduc-ing its current tax expense because of the ac-celerated tax deduction, the corporation willbecome liable for tax in a future period whenthe related item is expensed for book pur-poses (i.e., when the timing item ‘‘reverses’’).Under the applicable accounting standard(Accounting Principles Board Opinion 23),deferred tax liabilities generally were not re-quired for pre-1988 tax deductions attrib-utable to the bad debt reserve method ofthrift institutions because the potential re-versal of the bad debt reserve was indefinite(i.e., generally, a reversal would only occurby operation of sec. 593(e), a condition withinthe control of a thrift institution). However,the establishment of 1987 as a base year bythe Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased thelikelihood of bad debt reserve reversals withrespect to post-1987 additions to the reserveand it is understood that thrift institutionsgenerally have recorded deferred tax liabil-ities for these additions.Treatment of thrift institutions under H.R. 2491

H.R. 2491 (the ‘‘Thrift Charter ConversionAct of 1995’’) will require thrift institutionsto forego their Federal thrift charters andbecome either State-chartered thrift institu-tions or Federally-chartered banks. If athrift institution becomes a bank, the insti-tution will be subject to recapture of all ora portion of its bad debt reserve under pro-posed Treasury regulations. It is understoodthat such recapture will require the institu-tion to immediately record, for financial ac-counting purposes, a current or deferred taxliability for the amount of recapture taxesfor which liabilities previously had not beenrecorded (generally, with respect to the pre-1988 reserves) regardless of when such recap-

ture taxes are actually paid to the Treasury.It is further understood that the recording ofthis liability generally will decrease the reg-ulatory capital of the new bank.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposal would repeal the section 593reserve method of accounting for bad debtsby thrift institutions, effective for taxableyears beginning after 1995. Under the pro-posal, thrift institutions that qualify assmall banks would be allowed to utilize theexperience method applicable to such insti-tutions, while thrift institutions that aretreated as large banks would be required touse the specific charge-off method. Thus, thepercentage of taxable income method of ac-counting for bad debts would no longer beavailable for any institution.

A thrift institution required to change itsmethod of computing reserves for bad debtswould treat such change as a change in amethod of accounting, initiated by the tax-payer, and having been made with the con-sent of the Secretary of the Treasury. Anysection 481(a) adjustment required to betaken into account with respect to suchchange generally would be taken into ac-count ratably over a 6-taxable year period,beginning with the first taxable year begin-ning after 1995. For purposes of determiningthe section 481(a) adjustment of a taxpayer,the balance of the reserve for bad debts withrespect to the taxpayer’s base year (gen-erally, the balance of the reserve as of theclose of the last taxable year beginning be-fore January 1, 1988, adjusted for decreases inthe taxpayer’s loan portfolio) would not betaken into account. However, the balance ofthese pre-1988 reserves would continue to besubject to the provisions of present-law sec-tion 593(e) (requiring recapture in the case ofcertain excess distributions to shareholders).

Thus, under the proposal, subject to thespecial rule described below, a thrift institu-tion that would be treated as a large bankgenerally would be required to recapture itspost-1987 additions to its bad debt reserve,whether such additions are made pursuant tothe percentage of taxable income method orthe experience method. In addition, subjectto the special rule described below, a thriftinstitution that would qualify as a smallbank generally only would be required to re-capture its post-1987 additions to its bad debtreserve that were attributable to the use ofthe percentage of taxable income methodduring such period. If such small bank wouldlater become a large bank, any amount re-quired to be recaptured under present lawwould be reduced by the amount of the pre-1988 reserve.

Under a special rule, if the taxpayer meetsa ‘‘residential loan requirement’’ for anytaxable year, the amount of the section481(a) adjustment otherwise required to berestored to income would be suspended. Ataxpayer would meet the residential loan re-quirement if for any taxable year, the prin-cipal amount of residential loans made bythe taxpayer during the year is not less thanthe average of the principal amount of suchloans during the six most recent testingyears. A ‘‘testing year’’ means (1) each tax-able year ending on or after December 31,1990, and before January 1, 1996, and (2) eachtaxable year ending after December 31, 1995,for which the taxpayer met the residentialloan would be a loan described in section7701(a)(19)(C)(v) (generally, loans secured byresidential real and church property and mo-bile homes). The determination of whether amember of controlled group of corporationsmeet the residential loan requirement wouldbe made on a controlled group basis. A spe-cial rule would provide that a taxpayer thatcalculates its estimated tax installments onan annualized basis would determine wheth-

er it meets the residential loan requirementwith respect to each such installment. Treas-ury regulations are expected to provide rulesfor the application of the residential loan re-quirement rules in the case of mergers, ac-quisitions, and other reorganizations ofthrift and other institutions.

EFFECTIVE DATE

The proposal would be effective for taxableyears beginning after December 31, 1995.

2. Treatment of payments made to theSAIF fund pursuant to H.R. 2491.

PRESENT LAW AND BACKGROUND

In general, a taxpayer is allowed to deductordinary and necessary expenses paid or in-curred in carrying on a trade business duringthe taxable year (sec. 162). However, amountsthat give rise to a permanent improvementor betterment must be capitalized ratherthan deducted currently (sec. 263). Whetheran expenditure is deductible under section162 or must be capitalized under section 263is often a matter of dispute between the IRSand taxpayers and has been the subject ofsignificant litigation. Most recently, inINDOPCO v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992),the U.S. Supreme Court held that expendi-tures that give rise to a future benefit mustbe capitalized. The INDOPCO decision over-ruled a prior U.S. Supreme Court decisionthat has been interpreted to hold that an ex-penditure must give rise to an identifiableasset before it is capitalized (Lincoln Savingsv. Comm., 403 U.S. 345 (1971), relating to addi-tional premiums paid by a thrift institutionto the Federal Savings and Loan InsuranceCorporation). The scope of the INDOPCO de-cision is uncertain.

H.R. 2491 would require thrift institutionsto pay a special assessment to the SavingAssociation Insurance Fund (‘‘SAIF’’). Thedue date of the payment would be the firstbusiness day of January 1996. The SAIF gen-erally is the insurance fund for deposits inthrift institutions. Effective January 1, 1998,the SAIF would be merged with the Bank In-surance Fund (‘‘BIF’’) (the insurance fundfor deposits in banks). Thrift institutionsand banks also are required to pay annualpremiums to the SAIF and BIF, respectively,based on the amount of their insured depos-its. Currently, the premium rate for theSAIF deposits is substantially higher thanthe premium rate for BIF deposits. After themerger of the SAIF and BIF in 1998, underH.R. 2491, thrift institutions and bankswould be subject to the same lower depositinsurance rates generally applicable tobanks.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposal would provide that the spe-cial assessment paid to the SAIF as requiredby H.R. 2491 would be deductible when paid.

EFFECTIVE DATE

The proposal would be effective upon en-actment.

f

FORSAKING A VALUED BULWARKTO EXTREMISM

HON. JIM BUNNOF OREGON



Mr. BUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Government ofTurkey has, for several decades, been one ofAmerica’s closest allies. They have stood byus throughout the cold war, during OperationDesert Storm, and the crisis in the Balkans.Unfortunately, some in Congress have failedto recognize Turkey’s friendship and strategicimportance in recent weeks.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1973October 18, 1995As the Foreign Operation Subcommittee

prepares to enter into a conference with theother body, I hope that my fellow confereeswill take a moment to read the following edi-torial, which appeared in today’s WashingtonTimes.

This editorial illustrates the danger of basingour foreign policy on ethnic head counts in ourdistricts, instead of the national security con-cerns of the United States. I sincerely hopethat we can pursue a policy of friendship andcooperation with the Government of Turkey,and thereby ensure a long-lasting and mutu-ally beneficial relationship between our twonations.

FORSAKING A VALUED BULWARK TOEXTREMISM

(By Amos Perlmutter)It’s generally acknowledged that Turkey is

one of the key, critical strategic states inthe Middle East, yet that acknowledgementseems to have escaped the United States inrecent times.

Challenged by both internal and externalforces, Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Cillerresigned after losing a vote of confidence onSunday. The future of her Government—Tur-key’s friendliest to the U.S. in a long time—poses serious challenges to American foreignpolicy in the Middle East.

As far back as 1954, the United States andGreat Britain helped engineer the NorthernTier, a North Asian political bulwark andfortress against the Soviet Union in thedepths of the Cold War. The leading elementsof the tier then were Turkey, Iran, Pakistanand Iraq, seen as partners to the West in theCold War against the Soviet Union.

Turkey, which stands between Europe andAsia and controls the Black Sea passage tothe Mediterranean did more than its part. Itmade a real and still vivid contribution tothe Korean Way by delivering its legendarytough soldiers, who displayed conspicuousheroism. Turkey today remains a criticalmember of NATO and stands in key contrastto Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Muslim states ofthe former Soviet Union.

Given its critical importance and its basi-cally steadfast history, it seems more thanpassing strange that the United States hasnever fully acknowledged or rewarded thecontributions and importance of Turkey, in-cluding its key participation in the Gulf war,by allowing the use of its air space.

Why this casual treatment of Turkey?Some of the explanations for the Americanfailure to recognize the importance of Tur-key’s strategic role in the Middle East havetheir roots in the workings of Congress,where the domestic lobbies of Armenia andGreece hold sway in a ferocious battleagainst Turkish influence. In fact, the spec-ter of Sen. Robert Dole’s candidacy bodes nogood for Turkey. Mr. Dole, who was horriblywounded in World War II, was saved by theheroic medical efforts of an Armenian physi-cian, a personal fact that appears to have in-fluenced Mr. Dole’s policy toward Turkey.Even without Mr. Dole, the Armenian lobbyhas been very effective in preventing Turkeyfrom gaining the full economic fruits andbenefits of the European Economic Commu-nity.

The even more powerful Greek lobby hasmanaged to help relegate Turkey’s image inthe public eye to that of a non-EuropeanMuslim and Ottoman state that bears littleresemblance to the reality of modern Tur-key. In fact, Turkey’s civic culture since theKemalist revolution after World War I isthat of a secular state, even if it is, like somany other countries in the region, bur-dened by the threat of an emerging radical,Islamic and Kurdish opposition.

The problem for Turkey is that it has sofar displayed no gift for the kind of lobbyingand public proselytizing that is characteris-tic of the Greek and Armenian efforts. Turk-ish-Americans are spread throughout theUnited States and form no cohesive voting orsocial bloc. The absence of a natural and or-ganized lobby and the challenge presented bythe organized Greek and Armenian lobbieshave combined to result in a hesitant U.S.support for Turkey, despite its history andits strategic importance, which is greaterthan Greece.

The persistent complaint is that Turkey isnot a real democracy, an argument that canbe applied more correctly to the corrupt re-gime of Prime Minister Andreas Papandreauof Greece, a former sympathizer of the So-viet Union and of anti-American Third Worldradicals and terrorists. It’s true that neitherGreece nor Turkey are complete democracieson the order of the United States or Britain,but a good case can be made for Turkey onits substantive political and social culture,which is characterized by a history of civil-ity, an absence of racism and anti-Semitismand a certain steadfastness to allies eversince the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

It’s true that the Ottoman Empire, oncecalled ‘‘the Sick Man of Europe’’ was an abu-sive and corrupt empire. Yet even then, itssystem of vilayat rule allowed considerableautonomy and achieved more tolerance forreligious groups than other empires of itstime.

Today, Turkey is marked for its civility,and is important as a strategic partner. Mostof the vestiges of the Ottoman Empire havelong since vanished in the wake of the workof the model military reformist KamalAtaturk, who is the father of modern, secu-lar Turkey. Turkey, in fact, is the only secu-lar Muslim state in the world today, a notunremarkable feat and status.

Turkey ought to be rewarded instead of ig-nored for its secularization efforts. True,Turkey must find a better way to deal withits Kurdish problem, although its current ap-proach is relatively moderate, compared tothe way Iraq treats its Kurdish minority.The Turkish government should probably doits utmost to recognize the Kurds, althoughnot the PKP revolutionary Marxist group, asequal citizens.

Still, the reasons for American disinteresthave more to do with domestic Americanlobbying activities than any real or per-ceived Turkish failings. It’s high time theUnited States woke up to the strategic andcritical importance of Turkey. The easiestway to do that is to imagine Turkey in thehands of fundamentalist Islamic forces. Theopposite is true today—Turkey stands as areal and honest bulwark to the forces of radi-cal and fundamentalist Islam.

f

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

HON. PETER A. DeFAZIOOF OREGON



Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I join my col-league from the First District of California,Representative RIGGS, in supporting an exten-sion of State jurisdiction into the exclusiveeconomic zone [EEZ] for the States of Alaska,Washington, Oregon, and California. Certainfisheries, such as Dungeness crab, scallops,and thresher shark are not covered by a Fed-eral fishery management plan [FMP]. Stateslack the authority to manage these fisherieswhile the Pacific Fishery Management Council

and NMFS lack the resources to managethem. In the absence of management andconservation authority, these fisheries caneasily be exploited by fishermen fishing exclu-sively in the EEZ and then landing the productin State or foreign nation without landing lawsaddressing that species of fish. The bill as itis currently written grants authority to managein the EEZ to Alaska. I am hopeful that similarauthority will be granted to Washington, Or-egon, and California. I applaud the commit-ment by Representative YOUNG to work towardresolution of this issue.

f

WHO WILL NOTICE?

HON. PHILIP M. CRANEOF ILLINOIS



Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, lately there hasbeen a great deal of rhetoric about trainwrecks and other analogies to cataclysmicevents to describe the impending doom to theNation’s financial markets should the Govern-ment shut down if Congress and PresidentClinton disagree on a Federal budget. I be-lieve that most of the gloom and doom fore-casts come from bureaucrats and Democratswho generally overstate the importance ofWashington to the rest of the Nation.

As far as I am concerned, the shutdown ofnon-essential Federal agencies would con-stitute the fulfillment of my mission as a Mem-ber of Congress. However, in the past, theGovernment has, in fact, shut down tempo-rarily as Congress and the President foughtover the details of the funding for the Federalagencies. I suspect that, outside the CapitalBeltway, no one noticed when it was shutdown.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, JimMiller, the former director of the Office of Man-agement and Budget, also argues that no one,even those on Wall Street, will notice if theFederal Government temporarily shuts downduring budget negotiations.

As we in Congress continue to convincePresident Clinton of the necessity to balancethe Federal budget, I commend Mr. Miller’s ar-ticle, ‘‘Government Shutdown? ‘See If Any-body Notices’ ’’ to my colleagues for reassur-ance.

[From the Wall Street Journal]GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN? ‘SEE IF ANYBODY

NOTICES’(By James C. Miller III)

Washington is reaching the end game onthe budget. The White House wants Congressto compromise on—read, back off—a budgetthat simultaneously cuts taxes by $245 bil-lion, pays dollar for dollar for those tax cutswith spending cuts, and balances the booksby the year 2002. In a fit of rhetorical over-kill, the Clinton administration has warnedof a ‘‘train wreck’’ that will shut the govern-ment down and shake the financial marketsif no agreement is reached by Nov. 15.

In fact, the so-called train wreck would bemore of a fender bender. The law is quiteclear: There would be no shutdown—only‘‘non-essential services’’ would be curtailed.The armed forces would stand ready as ever;social security checks would be mailed ontime (and the post office would deliver themalong with all other mail); air traffic con-trollers and meat inspectors would stay onthe job. The fact is, the government has

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1974 October 18, 1995‘‘shut down’’ four times in the last 15 yearswithout anyone much noticing. After onesuch shutdown in 1990, the General Account-ing Office asked various government agen-cies what their number one concern regard-ing a shut down was, most answered ‘‘re-duced morale.’’ The IRS mentioned that itwas worried about a ‘‘loss of public con-fidence in the agency’’!

As for payments to U.S. debt holders, a po-tential default will be no more than a bumpalong the road to a balanced budget. In 1987and 1990, the government hit against thedebt ceiling, and we heard the same apoca-lyptic rhetoric we hear today. In 1985, asCongress and the Reagan administrationwere busy erecting the Gramm-Rudman-Hol-lings guillotine, the debt ceiling wasreached, and default loomed. Relying on anumber of technical fixes, the Treasury De-partment was able to forestall actual de-fault, but the uncertainty lasted more thana month. Did the market implode? Far fromit: Stocks actually staged a rally—takingthe S&P index to its then-all-time high.There’s a lesson in that earlier experiencethat holds true today: The value of the debtinvestors buy depends on the dynamism ofthe U.S. economy—not the fate of the U.S.government.

As always, in its preference for fear overfact, the Clinton administration is playingfast and loose with the numbers. Take theallegedly increased cost of interest rates ifthe government does hit the debt ceiling. Ac-cording to President Clinton’s chief eco-nomic adviser, Joseph Stiglitz, a rise of onehundredth of one percent—a single basispoint—would cost $3.5 billion over sevenyears. Three things are wrong with thatnumber.

First, it ignores the fact that over $1 tril-lion of government debt is ‘‘owned’’ by an-other government agency or entity—money,in effect, that Uncle Sam’s right pocket oweshis left. Second, Mr. Stiglitz apparently as-sumes the impossible—namely, that all gov-ernment debt would re-price immediately—and, third, that it would then carry the newand higher rate for the next seven years.That kind of statistical sleight-of-hand maypass for analysis in the White House, but noton Wall Street.

How can I be sure? I was serving as direc-tor of Office of Management and Budgetunder Ronald Reagan when one of thesenoncrises happened in 1986. At that time, ofcourse, the roles were reversed. A Demo-cratic Congress was trying to force increasedspending and higher taxes on a reluctant Re-publican president. The Democrats thoughtMr. Reagan would ‘‘blink first,’’ approvetheir extravagant spending bills, and beforced to raise taxes to pay for their largess.

Unable to convince them that wasn’t goingto happen, I found myself in the Oval Officeapologizing to the president and saying thatI feared the government would be forced toclose down.

‘‘Jim, Jim,’’ he said, with that famoussmile and a twinkle in his eye, ‘‘just settledown. Let’s close the place down and see ifanybody notices.’’

Then he went on the radio and said thesame thing: If Congress doesn’t act respon-sibly, ‘‘I won’t have any choice but to shut itdown. If they want to put a real budget to-gether by candlelight, it’s OK by me.’’ In theend, Congress agreed to take the most offen-sive measures out of their appropriationsbills, and the government engines startedback up after a brief pause.

The moral of the story: No one did notice.Perhaps President Clinton is heartened by

Mr. Reagan’s example, but there is a pro-found difference in their positions: PresidentReagan stood with the American people intheir desire to cut wasteful government

spending. President Clinton stands againsttheir wishes and for a continuation of thespending status quo.

Congress has the moral high road here, andthey shouldn’t be afraid of sticking to it.Theoretically, the president could engage ina reckless ‘‘firemen first’’ shutdown strat-egy. After all, the president has full power todefine which services are essential and whichare not. If he chose, he could define air traf-fic controllers as ‘‘non-essential’’ and hopethe American people blame Congress for theclosure of the nation’s airports. Or, when thedebt ceiling is reached Nov. 15, he could stopsending out Social Security checks to seniorcitizens, at least temporarily.

But the public will know that none ofthese actions is necessary. The law is clear:After debt holders, Social Security and otherentitlements get first priority, and there isno good reason why those payments shouldever be disrupted. If the president chooses toplay politics with entitlements, he and onlyhe will be responsible. If there is a ‘‘trainwreck,’’ he will be the engineer failing to putthe brakes on a runaway spending loco-motive. And like one of President Clinton’sfavorite musicians, the late Jerry Garcia,used to sing, ‘‘Casey Jones, you better watchyour speed.’’

f

MARZIEH

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNSOF NEW YORK


Wednesday, October 18, 1995Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my col-

leagues to join me in honoring Marzieh, leg-endary singer of Iran. The news media has re-ported the smashing success of Marzieh,grande dame of Iranian music, at her concertin California on September 30. You will recallthat Marzieh began her tour of the UnitedStates with a brief stop in Washington, wheremany members, including myself, had thegreat pleasure of meeting her at a receptionand dinner here on the hill. The sellout crowdof over 3,000 at Hollywood’s Pantages Thea-tre gave her a tremendous welcome and oneafter another of her songs prompted standingovations.

Marzieh is, of course, renowned among herpeople not only for her tremendous talent andcareer, spanning half a century, but for hercommitment to democracy and human rightsin her troubled homeland, Iran. The civil rightsmovement in this country was sustained withfreedom songs and songs of praise. Marziehhas brought a new voice for Iran, a voicewhich has helped to preserve Persian musicaltraditions, and a voice which now lends itselfto the battle for freedom and justice in Iran.

Just as the freedom songs of the 1960’scarried the message of the civil rights move-ment, Marzieh’s melodic tones will carry themessage of the resistance against the repres-sive regime in Iran. At 71, Marzieh is alreadya musical icon, but with her courageous deci-sion last year to leave her oppressed home-land after 15 years of silence and meet withthe Iranian Resistance’s President-elect, Mrs.Maryam Rajavi, in Paris, she has becomemuch more: A true champion of her people.As Mrs. Rajavi’s advisor on the arts and cul-ture, I am sure that Marzieh will play a signifi-cant role in reviving the world renowned leg-acy of Persian art and music.

I send Marzieh my congratulations on hergreat success on the west coast, and my best

wishes on her continuing work on behalf of theNational Council of Resistance of Iran.

f

HONORING THE MONTEBELLOWOMEN’S CLUB

HON. ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRESOF CALIFORNIA



Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today inrecognition of the Montebello Women’s Club-house in Montebello, CA, which has recentlybeen given the honor of being listed in the Na-tional Register of Historic Places.

The Montebello Women’s Club originated in1885. At that time, the club was primarily anintellectual and cultural organization thatserved the Montebello community. Not contentto meet in their homes, the women’s clubbegan to raise funds for the construction of aclubhouse. By 1923 club members had raisedenough funds and purchased two lots at thecorner of Park Avenue and Los AngelesStreet, where the clubhouse stands today.

The Montebello Women’s Clubhouse, builtin 1925, serves as a social gathering place forresident of the city of Montebello. During thecity’s formative years, the clubhouse was theonly suitable facility for large meetings, ban-quets, dinners, and dances. As a result, theclubhouse rapidly established itself as thecommunity’s primary social and civic gatheringplace.

The Montebello Women’s Clubhouse is aproduct of the Spanish revival architecturalphilosophy and an excellent example of thisinfluence which was prevalent during the early1920’s. For the past 70 years, this beautifulSpanish colonial revival social hall has servedthe Montebello community and been host toMontebello’s memorable historic social, com-munity, and civic events.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise torecognize the Montebello Women’s Clubhouseon the occasion of being listed in the NationalRegister of Historic Places. I also ask my col-leagues to join me in extending our best wish-es and congratulations to members of theMontebello Women’s Club.

f

LEGISLATION TO APPOINT A COM-MISSION ON MEAT PACKING IN-DUSTRY

HON. TIM JOHNSONOF SOUTH DAKOTA



Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speak-er, I am pleased today to introduce legislationthat will direct the President to appoint a spe-cial commission on the concentration and po-tentially reduced competition in the meat pack-ing industry. This legislation is necessary toensure the existence of open and fair competi-tion in the livestock and meat packing indus-try.

Over the last year, livestock producers havefaced devastatingly low prices that make itvery difficult, if not impossible, to break even,let alone receive a reasonable return on theirinvestment. Last spring, cattle and hog prices

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1975October 18, 1995fell to levels that could threaten the very sur-vival of our Nation’s independent family live-stock producers. Farmers and ranchers havequestioned whether a free and open marketoperates in the livestock and meat packing in-dustry, and the issues of packer concentrationand market access are at the core of theirconcerns.

This legislation will require the President toappoint a commission on concentration in themeat packing industry. The commission wouldbe chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture andbe comprised of cattle, hog, and lamb produc-ers; experts in antitrust legislation; economists;corporate chief financial officers; and cor-porate procurement experts. The commissionwould be charged with achieving the followinggoals:

First, determine if the upcoming USDAstudy on concentration in the red meat pack-ing industry represents current market condi-tions. Producers are concerned that the studyis based on outdated information and does notcover critical aspects of the livestock industry.This study was mandated by Congress in thefiscal year 1992 Agricultural appropriations bill.Producers and consumers need to have con-fidence that the findings of this study will applyto current market conditions.

Second, review the adequacy of currentantitrust laws with respect to the livestock in-dustry. Four large packing companies controlover 80 percent of the cattle slaughtered inthis country. Fifteen years ago this level wasonly a third as much. Given this amount ofmarket concentration, producers questionwhether current laws are adequate to ensurefree, open, and competitive livestock markets.

Third, make recommendations regarding theadequacy of price discovery in the livestock in-dustry. Producers question whether the regu-lations governing price discovery in the live-stock industry ensure the operation of a freeand open market.

Fourth, review the reasons for the large pro-ducer to retail price spread. Although produc-ers have been receiving some of the lowestprices in recent history for their livestock,packers and retailers have been enjoyingrecord profits. Both producers and consumersdeserve to know the reasons behind this dis-tressing price spread.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you and my colleaguesto join me in examining the underlying reasonsbehind one of the most difficult periods forlivestock producers in recent memory. Thislegislation can accomplish this.

f

A SALUTE TO THE WINNERS OFILLINOIS PRESS ASSOCIATIONAWARDS

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKIOF ILLINOIS



Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tohonor a number of news publications in mydistrict whose efforts to uphold the highestprinciples of journalism were recently recog-nized by the Illinois Press Association at itsannual awards ceremony.

First place winners in both large and smallweekly newspaper divisions cover portions ofmy district. The Southtown Economist of Chi-cago was named best large daily newspaper

in the State. Press Publications of Elmhurst, ILtook first place in the large weekly categoryand The Regional News of Palos Heights, ILwas the winner in the small weekly category.These newspapers also won other numerousawards.

Other first place winners from my district in-cluded the Star newspaper of ChicagoHeights, IL, which was honored for newspaperdesign and spot news photography, and TheDoings of Hinsdale, IL which was recognizedfor an indepth report on the teardown ofhomes in its community.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate these news-papers and their hard-working journalists onearning these prestigious honors.f

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. EARL POMEROYOF NORTH DAKOTA



Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I regret that Iwas not present for Rollcall No. 717, the Farrfish habitat amendment. At the time of thevote, I was meeting with Gen. RonaldFogelman, Chief of Staff for the U.S. AirForce, at the Pentagon regarding the Minot AirForce Base. Had I been present, I would havevoted ‘‘yes.’’f

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1976,AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOP-MENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMIN-ISTRATION, AND RELATEDAGENCIES APPROPRIATIONSACT, 1996

SPEECH OF

HON. VIC FAZIOOF CALIFORNIA


Thursday, October 12, 1995

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I risein support of the conference report for H.R.1976, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fis-cal year 1996.

H.R. 1976 is not a perfect bill. Next year’sbill continues an alarming trend in cutting im-portant programs for agriculture research, ani-mal and plant inspection, food safety and in-spection, conservation programs, and ruralhousing and development.

Certainly some savings have accrued fromthe reorganization of the Department of Agri-culture and closing of numerous field officesnationwide.

But we must guard against debilitating cutsthat prevent these agencies from fulfilling theirimportant missions.

Cuts to research, cuts to inspection, cuts tofood safety, cuts to conservation programs—we are short-sighted in cutting back on theseinvestments in this, the most productive sectorof our economy.

But, despite my reservations about thesecuts, we must judge the conference productagainst the House version of this bill, and wemust judge it against what is possible this yearand in this political climate—and based onthese comparisons, the conference report isan improved product.

The conference report improves upon theHouse funding level for research and exten-

sion. It improves upon the House funding levelfor food safety and inspection. It improvesupon the House funding level for rural housingand economic development.

I have particular praise for three items of im-portance to California agriculture and to mydistrict.

First, funds have been included for buildingsand facilities construction within the Coopera-tive State Research Service, including fundsfor an important integrated pest managementresearch facility at the University of Californiaat Davis and at Riverside.

Although some Members disagree withfunding for these facilities, and the House billcontained no funds for this construction pro-gram, the conference agreement is the rightdecision.

It makes sure that our important agricultureresearch institutions who have worked in goodfaith over the years are not left high and dry.But it also directs the institutions to provide aspecific and verifiable cost-share, and it tellsthem this is not an unlimited source of funds—it brings fair closure to this account over thenext 2 years.

Second, the conferees fought successfullyand in defense of the House position for theMarket Promotion Program.

There is probably no more important tool forexport promotion than MPP.

Agriculture exports, projected to exceed $50billion this year—up from $43.5 billion for fiscalyear 1994—are vital to the United States.

Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a

million Americans.Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 bil-

lion in related economic activity.Agriculture exports produce a positive trade

balance of nearly $20 billion.If U.S. agriculture is to remain competitive

under GATT, we must have policies and pro-grams that remain competitive with those ofour competitors abroad.

GATT did not eliminate export subsidies, itonly reduced them.

The European Union spent, over the last 5years, an average of $10.6 billion in annualexport subsidies—the United States spent lessthan $2 billion.

The E.U. spends more on wine exports—$89 million—than the United States currentlyspends for all commodities under the marketpromotion program.

MPP is critical to U.S. agriculture’s ability todevelop, maintain and expand export marketsin the new post-GATT environment, and MPPis a proven success.

In California, MPP has been tremendouslysuccessful in helping promote exports of Cali-fornia citrus, raisins, walnuts, almonds, peach-es and other specialty crops.

We have to remember that an increase inagriculture exports means jobs: a 10 percentincrease in agricultural exports creates over13,000 new jobs in agriculture and related in-dustries like manufacturing, processing, mar-keting and distribution.

For every $1 we invest in MPP, we reap a$16 return in additional agriculture exports. Inshort, the Market Promotion Program is a pro-gram that performs for American taxpayers.

The conferees have wisely held on to thisimportant program in the face of ill-informedand short-sighted action by the Senate.

Third, the conference committee has contin-ued to provide important funding for special

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1976 October 18, 1995research grants in the Cooperative State Re-search Service while continuing a significantcommitment to competitive grants.

The committee, sometimes in the face ofsignificant opposition, has always believedthere is a place for both competitive grantsand special grants.

Special grants ensure that particular atten-tion is paid to regional needs, temporaryneeds, and agricultural research where a spe-cial project is required. The grants are fullycost-shared and generally leverage efforts thatare already underway in many of our land-grant universities and other research institu-tions. The research projects are of limited du-ration.

The conference committee has decided cor-rectly to fund special research grants. TheRussian wheat aphid and the viticulture con-sortium are not burning issues for most Ameri-cans. But in California, these represent impor-tant research efforts for agricultural commod-ities that are making significant contributionsto our economy.

I know the other special grants enumeratedby the conference report are of equal value toother States and regions in addressing specialproblems, and I commend the conferencecommittee for their support of these initiatives.

In summary, this is not a perfect bill, but theconference report is a fair balancing of themany needs and many issues within the com-mittee’s jurisdiction. I commend Chairman JOESKEEN and Ranking Member DICK DURBIN fortheir efforts in support of American agricultureduring the conference committee deliberations,and I urge my colleagues to support the con-ference report.

f

IN HONOR OF HUGO PRINCZ

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.OF NEW JERSEY



Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today tohonor a special man who lives in my district inHighland Park, New Jersey: Mr. Hugo Princz.

Hugo is one of a few American survivors ofthe Holocaust in Nazi Germany. His familywas American, living in Slovakia in 1942 whenall were arrested by the Nazis. The SS re-fused to release the Princz family, whichshould have been done as part of the RedCross civilian prisoner exchange, instead thefamily was interned because it was Jewish.

Hugo’s mother, father, and sister were sentto Treblinka death camp and gassed on arriv-al. He and his brothers were sent to Ausch-witz, and worked as slave laborers. Mr.Princz’s job was to stack dead bodies for in-cineration. While in Auschwitz, Hugo’s twobrothers were killed. By the war’s end, Hugowas in Dachau and selected for extermination.He was fortunately saved by the U.S. Armywhen our soldiers boarded a train carryingHugo and other prisoners and saw U.S.A. em-broidered on his jersey.

After the war, Mr. Princz began what wouldturn out to be a 50-year struggle with the Ger-man Government for reparations—a fight inhonor of his family and all of the people whowere tortured by the Nazis. In 1955, Germanyrejected Mr. Princz’s application for its repara-tions program because his U.S. citizenshipmade him ineligible under German law.

Hugo’s struggle continued without success fordecades. German legislators refused to acceptresponsibility for the actions of the Nazis andrecognize Mr. Princz and his struggle for sur-vival.

Hugo looked to Congress to assist him inhis struggle. What he brought to me and themany Members of Congress who supportedhim was a just and righteous cause. Hugo’slawyers, William Marks from the firm of Pow-ell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, and StevenPerles should be commended for their workon Hugo’s behalf. They worked feverishly withMembers of Congress, for little reward, to as-sist Hugo in his efforts. Finally, on September19, 1995, the roller coaster ride of Hugo’sstruggle came to a successful conclusion. TheGerman Government recognized his struggleand provided him with the reparations he wasowed.

Mr. Speaker, Hugo Princz is an inspirationto everyone who knows him or has heard himtell his story. He managed to overcome theworst nightmare humanity has ever created.Yet his strength and determination in the faceof such strong adversity will remain in thehearts and minds of all who know him, andthat will be his legacy.

f

HAPPY 100TH BIRTHDAY ALFTHOMPSON

HON. GLENN POSHARDOF ILLINOIS



Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today towish Mr. Alf Thompson a happy 100th birth-day. Alf was born on November 11, 1895, andhas lived a truly memorable life.

As a young man, Alf enlisted in the Army,and in 1917 he was sent to the Philippineswhere he joined the Machinegun Company ofthe 31st Infantry Regiment in Manila. While inthe Philippines Alf became the company clerk,and began to consider applying for an officer’scommission.

In 1919 Alf was reassigned to Vladivostok,Siberia. Here he attended the American Expe-ditionary Force’s Officer Candidate School,and upon graduation was selected to lead the31st Infantry Regiment’s Signal Platoon. Hewas charged with the responsibility of keepingSiberia’s only source of coal safe as it wastransported on the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

When World War I ended Alf left the Armyand began a successful career in private busi-ness. When World War II erupted Alf onceagain when to work for his Nation. He left theprivate sector and joined the American RedCross. He went to the Mediterranean to helpthe soldiers, sailors, and airmen stationed inNorth Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Years later,when soldiers returned to Illinois from Viet-nam, Alf helped organize the State’s welcomehome program, and when the Vietnam Veter-an’s Memorial in Washington, DC needed ad-ditional monetary support, Alf helped raise thenecessary funds.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to represent thisexceptional man in Congress. I am proud tojoin with Alf’s friends and family to celebratehis 100th birthday, and I wish him many morehappy years.

TRIBUTE TO DR. RUTH WU

HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARDOF CALIFORNIA


Wednesday, October 18, 1995Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise

today to bring to your attention the retirementof Dr. Ruth Wu as the Dean of the School ofHealth and Human Services at California StateUniversity, Los Angeles. Dr. Wu has dedicatedher whole career to the education of youngpeople in health careers, particularly nursing.She is a person of great vision and was ableto put in place changes in curriculum and pro-gram which allowed students to be preparedto meet the needs of a changing society.

An example of her foresight is her dedica-tion and commitment to the establishment ofthe Edward R. Roybal Institute for AppliedGerontology on the campus of Cal State L.A.Her hard work and perseverance in promotingthe Gerontology Institute among the universityfaculty and administrators resulted in the de-velopment of a gerontology program which ismultidisciplinary in scope and communitybased in practice.

Dr. Wu has distinguished herself first in theclinical role as a public health nurse in Califor-nia, New York, and Michigan (1946–57); thenin the faculty role as a pediatric specialist atHenry Ford Community College, Michigan(1958–60), U.C.L.A. (1962–68) and Cal StateL.A. (1971–95). Dr. Wu was initially appointedas a visiting associate professor to the Depart-ment of Nursing in 1971.

Dr. Wu’s expertise in curriculum develop-ment and her leadership skills were quicklyrecognized and she was appointed interim De-partment Chair 1992–93, and her permanentDepartment Chair and professor in 1993–94.Her contributions from that point on are pri-marily in her third area of distinguished serv-ice, that of administration. From 1972 to 1982,Dr. Wu served as the Department Chair ofNursing. During those years she offered out-standing leadership in curriculum develop-ment, developing at that time one of the mostforward thinking nursing curriculums in thecountry. Her education partnerships with theestablishment of the on-site R.N. transfer bac-calaureate program offered at LAC-USC Medi-cal Center.

Dr. Wu’s contributions to nursing have beenrecognized both nationally and statewide. In1981, she became a fellow in the AmericanAcademy of Nursing, a very prestigious posi-tion. In 1987, she was awarded the LuluHassenplug outstanding nurse educator awardby the California Nurses Association.

Dr. Wu moved to the school offices in1982–83, first as the acting Associate Dean ofthe School of Fine and Applied Arts. In 1983–84, she served as acting Dean of that school.In 1984–85, Dr. Wu became the foundingdean of the new school of health and humanservices, and continued in that role until herretirement in 1995.

The California State University, Los Angelesand its students are losing a great educator.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratu-lating Dr. Ruth Wu for a most distinguishedand memorable career.

An example of her foresight is her dedica-tion and commitment to the establishment ofthe Edward R. Roybal Institute for AppliedGerontology on the campus of Cal State L.A.Her hard work and perseverance.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1977October 18, 1995REPRESENTATIVE MEEK HONORSREV. DR. WALTER T. RICHARDSON

HON. CARRIE P. MEEKOF FLORIDA


Wednesday, October 18, 1995Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this

weekend Rev. Walter T. Richardson, pastor ofSweet Home Missionary Baptist Church inPerrine, FL, will simultaneously receive aPh.D. degree in biblical counseling from TrinityTheological Seminary of Newburgh, IN, andcelebrate his 12th year as a pastor. I wouldlike to congratulate him on his two greatachievements and thank him for the longyears of service in the Miami area.

Reverend Richardson has served our com-munity with great energy and success. He sitson the Board of Trustees of Miami Dade Com-munity College and the Board of Directors ofthe New World School of the Arts. He is amember of the St. Thomas University HumanRights Institute and the Miami Coalition for aDrug Free Community. He has served aspresident of the West Perrine ChristianAssocation, Co-Chair of the board of directorsfor We Will Rebuild, on the executive commit-tee of the Miami NAACP, and numerous otherpositions. He has received awards too numer-ous to mention, but which include the 1993

NAACP Outstanding Service Award, the 1992Orange Bowl Committee Hurricane HeroAward, the 1991 Thomas Dorsey Award of Ex-cellence, and the 1985 Miami Herald Out-standing Black Achievers Award.

Guided by Reverend Richardson, SweetHome Missionary Baptist Church is amulticultural, racially integrated congregationconsisting of African-Americans, whites, andHispanics. Serving as pastor for the last 12years, Reverend Richardson has beenresponsbile for the growth of the church froma small congregation of 200 to the 1,200 wor-shippers who currently attend Sweet HomeMissionary Baptist Church.

Reverend Richardson’s accomplishments inthe academic field are as equally impressive.He graduated cum laude from St. ThomasUniversity with a B.A. in religious studies.From St. Thomas, he also earned his master’sdegree in pastoral ministries. Prior to workingtoward a Ph.D, Reverend Richardson didgraduate work in philosophy at the Universityof Miami and in theology at Gammon Theo-logical Seminary.

Walter T. Richardson, Reverend, pastor,community servant, and now Doctor, has dedi-cated over 26 years to the Christian Ministryand to the community around him. He hashelped people physically, mentally, and spir-itually. He has dedicated his time, efforts, andhis life to improving other’s lives. I offer Rev-

erend Richardson my sincere congratulationsfor his acomplishments and my deepestthanks for his long years of dedicated serviceto our community.

f

BIRTH OF JENNA MARIE HURKES

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKIOF ILLINOIS



Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it gives megreat pleasure to bring to the attention of mycolleagues the birth of a baby. Jenna MarieHurkes was born to MaryAnn and Jerry at10:57 a.m. on August 25, 1995, weighing 8pounds and 1 ounce. On an occasion such asthis, I join with the members of the Hurkesfamily in wishing Jenna Marie all the best forthe promising future ahead of her.

I am sure that my colleagues join me incongratulating the proud parents, MaryAnnand Jerry, on this most joyous occasion. Withtheir newborn baby, their lives together will nodoubt continue to be an adventure. May thisblessed addition to their lives bring them muchhappiness in the years to come.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of RemarksE 1978 October 18, 1995SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4,agreed to by the Senate on February 4,1977, calls for establishment of a sys-tem for a computerized schedule of allmeetings and hearings of Senate com-mittees, subcommittees, joint commit-tees, and committees of conference.This title requires all such committeesto notify the Office of the Senate DailyDigest—designated by the Rules Com-mittee—of the time, place, and purposeof the meetings, when scheduled, andany cancellations or changes in themeetings as they occur.

As an additional procedure alongwith the computerization of this infor-mation, the Office of the Senate DailyDigest will prepare this information forprinting in the Extensions of Remarkssection of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDon Monday and Wednesday of eachweek.

Meetings scheduled for Thursday, Oc-tober 19, 1995, may be found in theDaily Digest of today’s RECORD.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

OCTOBER 20

10:00 a.m.Judiciary

To resume hearings to examine the sta-tus of religious liberty in the UnitedStates.

SD–226

OCTOBER 23

10:00 a.m.JudiciaryConstitution, Federalism, and Property

Rights SubcommitteeTo resume hearings to examine the sta-

tus and future of affirmative action.SD–226

OCTOBER 24

10:00 a.m.JudiciaryAdministrative Oversight and the Courts

SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on S. 1101, to make im-

provements in the operation and ad-ministration of the Federal courts.

SD–226

ConfereesOn H.R. 1868, making appropriations for

foreign operations, export financing,and related programs for the fiscalyear ending September 30, 1996.

H-140, Capitol

OCTOBER 2510:00 a.m.

Veterans’ AffairsTo hold hearings to examine veterans’

employment issues.SR–418

2:00 p.m.Select on Intelligence

To hold hearings to examineintelligence’s support to law enforce-ment.

SD–G50

OCTOBER 269:00 a.m.

Energy and Natural ResourcesForests and Public Land Management Sub-

committeeTo hold hearings to examine alternatives

to Federal forest land management andto compare land management cost andbenefits on Federal and State lands.

SD–3669:30 a.m.

Indian AffairsTo hold hearings on proposed legislation

to provide for the transfer of certainlands to the Salt River Pima-MaricopaIndian Community and the City ofScottsdale, Arizona.

SR–485Special on Aging

To hold hearings to examine the qualityof care in nursing homes.

SD–6282:00 p.m.

Energy and Natural ResourcesParks, Historic Preservation and Recre-

ation SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on S. 231, to modify the

boundaries of Walnut Canyon NationalMonument in the State of Arizona, S.342, to establish the Cache La PoudreRiver National Water Heritage Area inthe State of Colorado, S. 364, to author-ize the Secretary of the Interior to par-ticipate in the operation of certain vis-itor facilities associated with, but out-side the boundaries of, Rocky Moun-tain National Park in the State of Col-orado, S. 489, to authorize the Sec-retary of the Interior to enter into anappropriate form of agreement with,

the town of Grand Lake, Colorado, au-thorizing the town to maintain perma-nently a cemetery in the Rocky Moun-tain National Park, S. 608, to establishthe New Bedford Whaling National His-torical Park in New Bedford, Massa-chusetts, and H.R. 562, to modify theboundaries of Walnut Canyon NationalMonument in the State of Arizona.

SD–366

OCTOBER 31

10:00 a.m.Judiciary

To hold hearings to examine changes inFederal law enforcement as a result ofthe incident in Waco, Texas.

SD–106

NOVEMBER 1

10:00 a.m.Judiciary

To continue hearings to examine changesin Federal law enforcement as a resultof the incident in Waco, Texas.

SD–106

NOVEMBER 7

10:00 a.m.Indian Affairs

To hold hearings on S. 1159, to establishan American Indian Policy InformationCenter.

SR–485

NOVEMBER 15

10:00 a.m.JudiciaryAdministrative Oversight and the Courts

SubcommitteeTo hold hearings on S. 582, to amend

United States Code to provide that cer-tain voluntary disclosures of violationsof Federal laws made pursuant to anenvironmental audit shall not be sub-ject to discovery or admitted into evi-dence during a Federal judicial or ad-ministrative proceeding.

SD–226

POSTPONEMENTS

OCTOBER 19

2:00 p.m.Foreign Relations

Business meeting, to consider pendingcalendar business.

SD–419

october 18, 1995 congressional record— e1965 …two centuries now of having its pay in-creases...

Documents