{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where congress = 104 sorted by date descending", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgD1056-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "Daily Digest/House of Representatives", "HOUSE", "DAILYDIGEST", "DDALLOTHER", "D1056", "D1056", null, null, "142 Cong. Rec. D1056", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Daily Digest]\n[Page D1056]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n House of Representatives\n\n The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on\nTuesday, January 7, 1997, at 12 noon."], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgD1056-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "Daily Digest/NEW PUBLIC LAWS", "HOUSE", "DAILYDIGEST", "DDNEWPUBLAWS", "D1056", "D1059", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"39\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"64\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"198\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"543\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"640\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"657\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"680\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"811\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"919\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1011\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1014\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1044\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1290\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1335\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1350\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1366\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1467\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1507\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1514\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1577\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1675\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1711\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1734\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1791\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1802\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1823\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1834\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1931\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1965\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1970\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1973\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2085\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2100\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2101\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2153\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2197\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2297\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2366\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2501\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2504\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2508\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2579\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2594\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2630\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2660\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2685\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2695\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2700\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2773\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2779\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2816\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2869\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2967\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2988\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3005\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3056\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3060\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3068\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3074\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3118\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3159\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3166\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3186\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3259\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3400\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3458\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3539\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3546\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3660\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3710\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3723\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3802\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3815\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3871\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3877\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3916\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3973\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4138\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4167\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4168\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. D1056", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Daily Digest]\n[Pages D1056-D1059]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n NEW PUBLIC LAWS\n\n (For last listing of Public Laws, see Daily Digest, p. D1049.)\n H.R. 2366, to repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting\nrequirement. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-224)\n H.R. 2504, to designate the Federal Building located at the corner of\nPatton Avenue and Otis Street, and the United States Courthouse located\non Otis Street, in Asheville, North Carolina, as the ``Veach-Baley\nFederal Complex''. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-225)\n H.R. 2685, to repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank.\nSigned October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-226)\n H.R. 3060, to implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection to\nthe Antarctic Treaty. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-227)\n H.R. 3186, to designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson\nRoad, in Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal\nBuilding''. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-228)\n H.R. 3400, to designate the United States courthouse to be\nconstructed at a site on 18th Street between Dodge and Douglas Streets\nin Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Roman L. Hruska United States\nCourthouse''. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-229)\n H.R. 3710, to designate a United States courthouse located in Tampa,\nFlorida, as the ``Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse''. Signed\nOctober 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-230)\n H.R. 3802, to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code,\npopularly known as the Freedom of Information Act, to provide for\npublic access to information in an electronic format. Signed October 2,\n1996. (P.L. 104-231)\n S. 1507, to provide for the extension of the Parole Commission to\noversee cases of prisoners sentenced under prior law, and to reduce the\nsize of the Parole Commission. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-232)\n S. 1834, to reauthorize the Indian Environmental General Assistance\nProgram Act of 1992. Signed October 2, 1996. (P.L. 104-233)\n H.R. 3074, to amend the United States-Israel Free Trade Area\nImplementation Act of 1985 to provide the President with additional\nproclamation authority with respect to articles of the West Bank or\nGaza Strip or a qualifying industrial zone. Signed October 2, 1996.\n(P.L. 104-234)\n S. 919, to modify and reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and\nTreatment Act. Signed October 3, 1996. (P.L. 104-235)\n S. 1675, to provide for the nationwide tracking of convicted sexual\npredators. Signed October 3, 1996. (P.L. 104-236)\n S. 1965, to prevent the illegal manufacturing and use of\nmethamphetamine. Signed October 3, 1996. (P.L. 104-237)\n S. 2101, to provide educational assistance to the dependents of\nFederal law enforcement officials who are killed or disabled in the\nperformance of their duties. Signed October 3, 1996. (P.L. 104-238)\n H.R. 1350, to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 to revitalize the\nUnited States-flag merchant marine. Signed October 8, 1996. (P.L. 104-\n239)\n\n[[Page D1057]]\n\n H.R. 3056, to permit a county-operated health insuring organization\nto qualify as an organization exempt from certain requirements\notherwise applicable to health insuring organizations under the\nMedicaid program notwithstanding that the organization enrolls Medicaid\nbeneficiaries residing in another county. Signed on October 8, 1996.\n(P.L. 104-240)\n H.R. 657, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act\napplicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects in the\nState of Arkansas. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-241)\n H.R. 680, to extend the time for construction of certain FERC\nlicensed hydro projects. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-242)\n H.R. 1011, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act\napplicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in the State\nof Ohio. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-243)\n H.R. 1014, to authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-\nissued hydroelectric license. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-244)\n H.R. 1290, to reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under\nthe Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a\nhydroelectric project in Oregon. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-245)\n H.R. 1335, to provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project in\nthe State of West Virginia. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-246)\n H.R. 1366, to authorize the extension of time limitation for the\nFERC-issued hydroelectric license for the Mt. Hope Waterpower Project.\nSigned October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-247)\n H.R. 1791, to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make\ncertain technical corrections relating to physicians' services. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-248)\n H.R. 2501, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act\napplicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Kentucky.\nSigned October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-249)\n H.R. 2508, to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to\nprovide for improvements in the process of approving and using animal\ndrugs. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-250)\n H.R. 2594, to amend the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act to reduce\nthe waiting period for benefits payable under that Act. Signed October\n9, 1996. (P.L. 104-251)\n H.R. 2630, to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of\na hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois. Signed October 9,\n1996. (P.L. 104-252)\n H.R. 2660, to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated to\nthe Department of the Interior for Tensas River National Wildlife\nRefuge. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-253)\n H.R. 2695, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act\napplicable to the construction of certain hydroelectric projects in the\nState of Pennsylvania. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-254)\n H.R. 2700, to designate the United States Post Office building\nlocated at 7980 FM 327, Elmendorf, Texas, as the ``Amos F. Longoria\nPost Office Building''. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-255)\n H.R. 2773, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act\napplicable to the construction of 2 hydroelectric projects in North\nCarolina. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-256)\n H.R. 2816, to reinstate the license for, and extend the deadline\nunder the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a\nhydroelectric project in Ohio. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-257)\n H.R. 2869, to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of\na hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky. Signed October 9,\n1996. (P.L. 104-258)\n H.R. 2967, to extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings\nRadiation Control Act of 1978. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-259)\n H.R. 2988, to amend the Clean Air Act to provide that traffic signal\nsynchronization projects are exempt from certain requirements of\nEnvironmental Protection Agency Rules. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L.\n104-260)\n H.R. 3068, to accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian\nCommunity to revoke their charter of incorporation issued under the\nIndian Reorganization Act. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-261)\n H.R. 3118, to amend title 38, United States Code, reform eligibility\nfor health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, to\nauthorize major medical facility construction projects for the\nDepartment, and to improve administration of health care by the\nDepartment. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-262)\n H.R. 3458, to increase, effective as of December 1, 1996, the rates\nof disability compensations for veterans with service connected\ndisabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for\nsurvivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-263)\n H.R. 3539, to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize\nprograms of the Federal Aviation Administration. Signed October 9,\n1996. (P.L. 104-264)\n H.R. 3546, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the\nWalhalla National Fish Hatchery to the State of South Carolina. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-265)\n H.R. 3660, to make amendments to the Reclamation Wastewater and\nGroundwater Study and Facilities Act. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L.\n104-266)\n\n[[Page D1058]]\n\n H.R. 3871, to waive temporarily the Medicaid enrollment composition\nrule for certain health maintenance organizations. Signed October 9,\n1996. (P.L. 104-267)\n H.R. 3877, to designate the United States Post Office building in\nCamden, Arkansas, as the ``Honorable David H. Pryor Post Office\nBuilding''. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-268)\n H.R. 3916, to make available certain Voice of America and Radio Marti\nmultilingual computer readable text and voice recordings. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-269)\n H.R. 3973, to provide for a study of the recommendations of the Joint\nFederal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska\nNatives. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-270)\n H.R. 4138, to authorize the hydrogen research, development, and\ndemonstration programs of the Department of Energy. Signed October 9,\n1996. (P.L. 104-271)\n H.R. 4167, to provide for the safety of journeyman boxers. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-272)\n H.R. 4168, to amend the Helium Act to authorize the Secretary to\nenter into agreements with private parties for the recovery and\ndisposal of helium on Federal lands. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-\n273)\n S. 1577, to authorize appropriations for the National Historical\nPublications and Records Commission for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000,\nand 2001. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-274)\n S. 1711, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the\nbenefits programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,\nand to provide for a study of the Federal programs for veterans. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-275)\n S. 1802, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain\nproperty containing a fish and wildlife facility to the State of\nWyoming. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-276)\n S. 1931, to provide that the United States Post Office and Courthouse\nbuilding located at 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, shall\nbe known and designated as the ``L. Clure Morton United States Post\nOffice Courthouse''. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-277)\n S. 1970, to amend the National Museum of the American Indian Act to\nmake improvements in the Act. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-278)\n S. 2085, to authorize the Capitol Guide Service to accept voluntary\nservices. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-279)\n S. 2100, to provide for the extension of certain authority for the\nMarshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police. Signed\nOctober 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-280)\n S. 2153, to designate the United States Post Office building located\nin Brewer, Maine, as the Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain Post Office\nBuilding''. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-281)\n S.J. Res. 64, to commend Operation Sail for its advancement of\nbrotherhood among nations, its continuing commemoration of the history\nof the United States, and its nurturing of young cadets through\ntraining in seamanship. Signed October 9, 1996. (P.L. 104-282)\n H.R. 543, to approve a governing international fishery agreement\nbetween the United States and the Republic of Estonia. Signed October\n11, 1996. (P.L. 104-283)\n H.R. 1514, to authorize and facilitate a program to enhance safety,\ntraining, research, and development, and safety education in the\npropane gas industry for the benefit of propane consumers and the\npublic. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-284)\n H.R. 1734, to reauthorize the National Film Preservation Board.\nSigned October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-285)\n H.R. 1823, to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act to direct\nthe Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment\ncontracts between the United States and the Central Utah Water\nConservancy District dated December 28, 1965, and November 26, 1985.\nSigned October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-286)\n H.R. 2297, to codify without substantive change laws related to\ntransportation and to improve the United States Code. Signed October\n11, 1996. (P.L. 104-287)\n H.R. 2579, to establish the National Tourism Board and the National\nTourism Organization to promote international travel and tourism to the\nUnited States. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104- 288)\n H.R. 2779, to provide for soft-metric conversion. Signed October 11,\n1996. (P.L. 104-289)\n H.R. 3005, to amend the Federal securities laws in order to promote\nefficiency and capital formation in the financial markets, and to amend\nthe Investment Company Act of 1940 to promote more efficient management\nof mutual funds, protect investors, and provide more effective and less\nburdensome regulation. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-290)\n H.R. 3159, to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize\nappropriations for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 for the National\nTransportation Safety Board. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-291)\n H.R. 3166, to prohibit false statements to Congress, and to clarify\ncongressional authority to obtain\n\n[[Page D1059]]\n\ntruthful testimony. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-292)\n H.R. 3259, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for\nintelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States\nGovernment, the Community Management Account, and the Central\nIntelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. Signed October\n11, 1996. (P.L. 104-293)\n H.R. 3723, to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect\nproprietary economic information. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-\n294)\n H.R. 3815, to make technical corrections and miscellaneous amendments\nto trade laws. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-295)\n H.J. Res. 198, appointing the day for the convening of the first\nsession of the One Hundred Fifth Congress and the day for the counting\nin Congress of the electoral votes for President and Vice President\ncast in December 1996. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-296)\n S. 39, to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act\nto authorize appropriations, to provide for sustainable fisheries.\nSigned October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-297)\n S. 811, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies\nregarding the desalination of water and water reuse. Signed October 11,\n1996. (P.L. 104-298)\n S. 1044, to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to\nconsolidate and reauthorize provisions relating to health centers.\nSigned October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-299)\n S. 1467, to authorize the construction of the Fort Peck Rural County\nWater Supply System, and to authorize assistance to the Fort Peck Rural\nCounty Water District, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning,\ndesign, and construction of the water supply system. Signed October 11,\n1996. (P.L. 104-300)\n S. 1973, to provide for the settlement of the Navajo-Hopi land\ndispute. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-301)\n S. 2197, to extend the authorized period of stay within the United\nStates for certain nurses. Signed October 11, 1996. (P.L. 104-302)\n S. 640, to provide for the conservation and development of water and\nrelated resources, and to authorize the Secretary of the Army to\nconstruct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of\nthe United States. Signed October 12, 1996. (P.L. 104-303)"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgD1056", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "Daily Digest/Senate", "SENATE", "DAILYDIGEST", "DDALLOTHER", "D1056", "D1056", null, null, "142 Cong. Rec. D1056", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Daily Digest]\n[Page D1056]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n[[Page D1056]]\n\n Daily Digest\n\n Senate\n\n The Senate was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on\nTuesday, January 7, 1997, at 12 noon."], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgD1059", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "Daily Digest/CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The public proceedings of each House of Congress,\n as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to\n directions of the Joint Committee on...", "HOUSE", "DAILYDIGEST", "DDALLOTHER", "D1059", "D1060", null, null, "142 Cong. Rec. D1059", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Daily Digest]\n[Pages D1059-D1060]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The public proceedings of each House of Congress,\n as reported by the Official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to\n directions of the Joint Committee on Printing as authorized by appropriate\n provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that\n one or both Houses are in session, excepting very infrequent instances when\n two or more unusually small consecutive issues are printed at one time.\n Public access to the Congressional Record is available online through GPO\n Access, a service of the Government Printing Office, free of charge to the\n user. The online database is updated each day the Congressional Record is\n published. The database includes both text and graphics from the beginning\n of the 103d Congress, 2d session (January 1994) forward. It is available on\n the Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and via\n asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using the\n World Wide Web; the Superintendent of Documents home page address is\n http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs, by using local WAIS client software or by\n telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest (no password required).\n Dial-in users should use communications software and modem to call (202)\n 512\ufffd091661; type swais, then login as guest (no password required). For general\n information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team by\n sending Internet e-mail to help@eids05.eids.gpo.gov, or a fax to (202)\n 512\ufffd091262; or by calling Toll Free 1\ufffd09888\ufffd09293\ufffd096498 or (202) 512\ufffd091530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern\n time, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The Congressional\n Record paper and 24x microfiche will be furnished by mail to subscribers,\n free of postage, at the following prices: paper edition, $112.50 for six\n months, $225 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issue, payable in advance;\n microfiche edition, $118 per year, or purchased for $1.50 per issue payable\n in advance. The semimonthly Congressional Record Index may be purchased for\n the same per issue prices. Remit check or money order, made payable to the\n Superintendent of Documents, directly to the Government Printing Office,\n Washington, D.C. 20402. Following each session of Congress, the daily\n Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and sold by the\n Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. With the\n exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the\n republication of material from the Congressional Record.\n\n[[Page D1060]]\n\n_______________________________________________________________________\n\n Next Meeting of the SENATE\n 12 noon, Tuesday, January 7, 1997\n\n Senate Chamber\nProgram for Tuesday: The convening of the 105th Congress.\n\n Next Meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\n 12 noon, Tuesday, January 7, 1997\n\n House Chamber\nProgram for Tuesday: The convening of the 105th Congress.\n_______________________________________________________________________\n\n Extensions of Remarks, as inserted in this issue\n HOUSE\n\nBentsen, Ken, Tex., E1933, E1936\nBonior, David E., Mich., E1936, E1938, E1940\nCooley, Wes, Ore., E1933, E1935, E1945\nDavis, Thomas M., Va., E1942\nDeutsch, Peter, Fla., E1944\nDingell, John D., Mich., E1938\nDoolittle, John T., Calif., E1939\nDreier, David, Calif., E1944\nFarr, Sam, Calif., E1933, E1934\nFazio, Vic, Calif., E1939\nFoglietta, Thomas M., Pa., E1943\nKennedy, Joseph P., II, Mass., E1932, E1934, E1936\nLantos, Tom, Calif., E1943\nLipinski, William O., Ill., E1932, E1934, E1936, E1938\nMartini, William J., N.J., E1932, E1934, E1936, E1937, E1938, E1940,\nE1943, E1944, E1945, E1951\nMatsui, Robert T., Calif., E1939\nMica, John L., Fla., E1931\nMoorhead, Carlos J., Calif., E1944\nNorton, Eleanor Holmes, D.C., E1931\nOberstar, James L., Minn., E1937\nPombo, Richard W., Calif., E1939\nRegula, Ralph, Ohio, E1940\nVisclosky, Peter J., Ind., E1938\nYoung, Don, Alaska, E1941"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1931-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "RELOCATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1931", "E1932", "[{\"name\": \"Eleanor Holmes Norton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1931", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1931-E1932]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n RELOCATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION\n\n ______\n\n HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON\n\n of the district of columbia\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in regard to the\ncolloquy between Mr. Lightfoot and Mr. Tom Coburn concerning the\nrelocation of the Federal Communications Commission into the Portals\nBuilding, in Washington DC, and enter into the Record a letter from the\nAdministrator of General Services Administration about this issue. In\naddition to summarizing the court proceedings which ruled that GSA\nreinstate the space procurement and proceed with the planned move for\nthe FCC into the Portals, the Administrator of GSA details the costs\nassociated with any delay in the move.\n\n Administrator,\n\n General Services Administration,\n\n Washington, DC, October 7, 1996.\n Hon. Robert Kerrey,\n Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal\n Service, and General Government, Committee on\n Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.\n Dear Senator Kerrey: I am writing to express my most\n serious concerns regarding the delay of the consolidation of\n the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the Portals\n Complex in Washington, DC. This move was the subject of\n colloquies on the floors of the House and Senate on September\n 28, 1996, and September 30, 1996, respectively. Because I do\n not believe the colloquies reflected critical pertinent\n information, I would like to request that this letter be\n added to the Record. The Court of Federal Claims issued a\n specific ruling on this matter that was upheld by the U.S.\n Court of Appeals. Furthermore, a delay of the FCC's\n relocation will cost the Government over $19 million annually\n in rental costs.\n It is in the best interest of the Federal Government to\n consolidate the FCC at the Portals complex for the following\n reasons:\n 1. The Federal courts instructed the General Services\n Administration (GSA) to award a lease at the Portals for the\n FCC, and GSA has complied with their instructions.\n 2. GSA signed a 20-year firm-term lease with Portals to\n consolidate the FCC headquarters. If the FCC is not relocated\n to Portals, it will cost the Federal Government more than $19\n million annually for each year that the space remains vacant,\n with no resulting benefits.\n 3. The FCC is currently located in seven locations in\n Washington, DC. This has resulted in increased operating\n costs. Relocation to a consolidated site will eliminate this\n costly and undesirable condition.\n 4. The FCC's current space requirements are consistent with\n their space in the Portals Complex.\n 5. The Federal Government will pay $31.99 per rentable\n square foot (rsf) ($38.47 per occupiable square foot (osf))\n for the FCC lease consolidation. This is below the amount\n authorized by the Congress ($32.30 per rsf). In addition,\n this is at the low end of the rental range in Washington, DC,\n which is $29 to $40 per rsf.\\1\\\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \\1\\ Note: GSA utilizes two space measurements in lease\n prospectuses, occupiable and rentable square feet, (osf) and\n (rsf), respectively. OSF is a national standard for GSA, and\n is the space which is available for use by an agencies\n personnel or furnishings excluding hallways, restrooms, and\n vertical penetrations such as elevators and stairwells. RSF\n is usually a larger area than osf, and is calculated by\n measuring from inside wall to inside wall excluding any\n vertical penetrations.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n[[Page E1932]]\n\n 6. Both the House and Senate Public Works Committees\n authorized the consolidation of the FCC headquarters,\n indicating congressional support for the project.\n Since 1987, the General Services Administration (GSA) has\n attempted to consolidate the FCC headquarters from dispersed\n locations in Washington, DC. On July 9, 1987, GSA submitted a\n lease prospectus totaling 260,416 osf for the FCC\n headquarters. The prospectus was authorized by the House\n Committee on Public Works and Transportation on September 23,\n 1987.\n Subsequent to the approval of the lease prospectus, the\n FCC's space needs grew because of new programs such as the\n Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992. As a result\n of this growth, GSA canceled the lease procurement on\n February 10, 1992. At the time of the cancellation, GSA had\n selected Parcel 49C Limited Partnership (Portals) as the\n successful offeror. The Parcel 49C Limited Partnership sued\n GSA because of the canceled lease procurement. On February\n 28, 1994, the Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of 49C\n Limited Partnership, and returned the lease procurement to\n the point prior to lease award. In response to GSA's argument\n that resolution was necessary to accommodate the FCC's space\n needs, the Federal Circuit ruled specifically that\n resolicitation was not in the public interest and would\n ``result in further, unnecessary expenditures of Government\n resources,'' and that the existing award could accommodate\n the FCC's prior and future space needs. GSA appealed the\n ruling, and on August 1, 1994, the United States Court of\n Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Court of Federal\n Claims ruling.\n On August 12, 1994, GSA awarded a lease to Parcel 49C for\n 260,416 osf, consistent with the fiscal year 1988 lease\n prospectus and in accordance with the court ruling. GSA\n negotiated a second lease reflecting the FCC's expanded\n requirement. This second lease would only be effective,\n following the approval of the Public Works Committees of the\n House and Senate. On September 23, 1994, GSA submitted a\n lease prospectus for 545,076 osf to meet the entire estimated\n FCC requirement. The House Committee on Public Works and\n Transportation, and the Senate Committee on Environment and\n Public Works, authorized 450,416 osf for the FCC headquarters\n on September 26, 1994, and October 10, 1995, respectively.\n Because of the unacceptable cost implications of not moving\n the FCC to the Portals, we are continuing to explore\n alternative methods of paying for the FCC's relocation costs.\n It may well be that we can reduce the costs of moving and of\n fitting out the Portals Complex, and we will work with the\n FCC to try to reduce those costs while making sure that the\n FCC can function effectively at the Portals. GSA will report\n back to the Subcommittee when the new Congress convenes.\n If you have any questions, please have a member of your\n staff contact Mr. David Bibb, Deputy Commissioner, Public\n Buildings Service, on (202) 501-1100.\n Sincerely,\n David J. Barram,\n Acting Administrator.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1931", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "PRESIDENTIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1931", "E1931", "[{\"name\": \"John L. Mica\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1931", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1931]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[[Page E1931]]\n\n PRESIDENTIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT\n\n ______\n\n HON. JOHN L. MICA\n\n of florida\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that as one of its last\nactions this historic 104th Congress will pass the Presidential and\nExecutive Office Accountability Act. In one of its first legislative\nactions, this Congress took the unprecedented step of making itself\nsubject to the same laws that govern private citizens and businesses.\nNow, this legislation, which I introduced, will make the White House\nobey those laws, too.\n When the President signs this bill, the last plantation where\nAmerican civilians toil beyond the reach of some of the basic labor and\nemployment laws imposed on private enterprise will have fallen. As a\nresult of the Congressional Accountability Act and this legislation,\nthe political branches of government will be required to wrestle with\nthe same knotty problems that private businesses face every day. They\nwill face compliance with the same laws and edicts imposed on all\nAmericans.\n Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are passing today is not\nnearly as strong as the bill this House passed by a vote of 410 to 5 on\nSeptember 24, 1996. It has been watered down in a number of areas,\nmostly as a result of administration pressure. Unlike Congress and the\nprivate sector, the White House will have the option of following the\nFederal sector version of some of these employment laws. That is,\nrather than obey the same law as the legislative branch and American\nbusinesses, the President may take advantage of special variations of\nthose laws that apply to the executive branch.\n Some very important provisions have been stripped altogether. One was\na long overdue revision of the definition of ``special government\nemployee.'' These special government employees--who often serve without\npay--are subject to conflict-of-interest statutes and financial\ndisclosure requirements. Such checks on the activities of volunteer\nadvisers to the President and White House employees are indispensable\nfor safeguarding the integrity of governmental processes and decisions.\nYet ambiguities in existing law were exploited by the Clinton White\nHouse and Justice Department to hold that Harry Thomason, whose\nquestionable activities have been documented in the Committee on\nGovernment Reform and Oversight's report on the Travelgate scandal, was\nnot a special government employee.\n The President needs his personal and confidential advisors, but the\nAmerican people need to hold such people accountable. Harry Thomason\nand other political operatives used this White House like a personal\noffice annex. He should have been accountable to the ethics laws,\nconflict of interest, and other measures that ensure the integrity of\nthe highest offices in the land. These abuses must be stopped.\n Mr. Speaker, the bill this House passed on the 24th would have made\nit clear that such people are to be considered special government\nemployees. Under that bill, they would have been subject to conflict-\nof-interest rules and financial disclosure requirements. It would\nhave prevented future abuses. But those provisions have been stripped\nfrom the bill we will pass today. When the next Congress convenes, I\nwill again introduce legislation to make future Harry Thomasons\naccountable to the American people.\n\n Another key provision of the House-passed bill that is not found in\nthe version passed by the Senate required the President to appoint a\nchief financial officer for the Executive Office of the President. The\nchief financial officer, which is found in other agencies throughout\nthe Government, would review and audit the White House's financial\nsystems and records. The Travelgate, Filegate, and hearings related to\nother White House scandals highlighted the shortcomings in this White\nHouse's financial responsibility.\n We will need to strengthen this law during the 105th Congress. During\nour hearings last year, we learned that the White House's financial\noperations lacked structure, so we could not achieve accountability.\nSometimes, the White House paid for equipment it no longer needed.\nOther times, it paid for items that were never delivered. These\nhearings also revealed other egregious examples of waste and abuse\nbecause accounting controls were so poor the White House Communications\nAgency recently had $14.5 million in unvalidated obligations. The\nDepartment of Defense's inspector general reported that the Agency paid\nonly 17 percent of its bills on time, so taxpayers got stuck for\npenalties and interest on the other 83 percent of its obligations.\n The House-passed bill also included provisions, advanced by\nGovernment Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee\nChairman Representative Stephen Horn and Representative Charles Bass,\nthat would have placed an inspector general in the White House. The\nWhite House opposed this provision, even though other Government\nagencies must comply.\n If you can believe it, Mr. Speaker, the same people who put a bar\nbouncer and political trickster in charge of White House personnel\nsecurity insisted that they do not need to meet the same oversight\nstandards as the rest of the Government. With the gross mismanagement\nand lack of accountability that we have uncovered in this White House,\nI can assure you that I will pursue these matters vigorously in the\nnext Congress.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1932-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO JOSEPH COCCIA, JR.", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1932", "E1932", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1932", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1932]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO JOSEPH COCCIA, JR.\n\n ______\n\n speech of\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Friday, October 4, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joseph\nCoccia, Jr., the recipient of the 1996 Italian Tribune News Columbus\nDay Community Service Award. Mr. Coccia will receive the award from the\nexecutive director of the annual celebration.\n As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Christopher Columbus crossed the\nAtlantic Ocean in search of a New World. Columbus' exploration\nrepresented a service to the world far greater than he ever knew. He\ndiscovered a New World which would eventually evolve into the world's\ngreatest democracy.\n Each year, the Italian Tribune News rewards a deserving individual\nwith the Columbus Day Community Service Award, in recognition of\nColumbus's service to humanity.\n This year, Joseph Coccia, Jr., will be honored with this award. Mr.\nCoccia was born in Newark, NJ, to Italian immigrant parents, in the\nmidst of the Great Depression. He was educated in the public school\nsystem until he entered the Army in 1951 and served his country in the\nKorean war.\n After returning from Korea with an honorable discharge in 1953, he\nmarried his childhood sweetheart, Elda Soriano. Together, the Coccias\nhave five wonderful children.\n In 1961, Mr. Coccia opened his own real estate agency and developed\nit into a successful and prosperous enterprise. Mr. Coccia was so\ngrateful for this success, he felt compelled to share his prosperity\nwith the community by donating both time and money to various local\ncharities and organizations.\n For example, Mr. Coccia is an energetic supporter of local law\nenforcement. He was the nucleus of a successful fundraiser to purchase\n144 bulletproof vests for the Kearny Police Department. In 1979, in\nrecognition of his generosity, he was awarded a Silver Honorary\nMembership in PBA Local 21. He was the first civilian in 70 years to\nreceive this award.\n Mr. Coccia is also a charter member and past president of the Kearny,\nNJ, Chapter of UNICO National, as well as past national president of\nUNICO. As the national president, he pioneered programs designed to\nassist the mentally disabled and was the recipient of the Dr. Anthony\nVastola Medal--the highest honor awarded by UNICO. Mr. Coccia was also\nhonored by the former Consul General of Italy for his invaluable\nassistance following catastrophic earthquakes in Italy during the late\n1970's.\n Today, Mr. Coccia serves as secretary for the New Jersey Cavaliere\nAssociation, trustee for the Catholic Youth Ministries, a member of the\nBoard of Governors at West Hudson Hospital, president of the West\nHudson/South Bergen Chamber of Commerce and member of the Marconi\nFraternal Association.\n Joseph Coccia is truly deserving of this distinguished award, Mr.\nSpeaker. I ask my colleagues to rise in recognition of the vast array\nof contributions that Mr. Coccia provides to our community, in the\nEighth Congressional District of New Jersey.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1932-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "IN HONOR OF HERBERT STOKINGER", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "HONORING", "E1932", "E1933", "[{\"name\": \"Joseph P. Kennedy II\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1932", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1932-E1933]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n IN HONOR OF HERBERT STOKINGER\n\n ______\n\n HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II\n\n of massachusetts\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today\nin honor of an outstanding citizen from the State of Massachusetts, who\nis deserving of our congratulations on the forthcoming celebration of\nhis 90th birthday.\n Herbert G. Stokinger has been an outstanding and dedicated resident\nof Milton, MA. For the past 66 years he has been devotedly married to\nhis lovely wife Esther and is a member of the Milton Academy Class of\n1924, and Boston College Class of 1928.\n Herbert was director of Milton Academy Boys' Sports and Physical\nEducation, from 1928 through 1971. He was the coach of varsity\nfootball, basketball, and baseball, and has been inducted into the\nMassachusetts Football\n\n[[Page E1933]]\n\nCoaches Hall of Fame. Stoky believed that every student should\nparticipate to the highest level of their ability and insisted upon the\nimportance of fair play and good sportsmanship. His outstanding values\nand compassion have influenced countless Milton Academy graduates, such\nas myself.\n Herbert has continued to show remarkable dedication, vigor, and\ncommitment to Milton Academy and the town of Milton. I join all the\nfriends of Herbert G. Stokinger, as we celebrate his 90th birthday and\nrecognize this fine individual who has touched the lives of so many.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1932", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE 1996 INDUCTEES TO THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP HALL OF FAME", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1932", "E1932", "[{\"name\": \"William O. Lipinski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1932", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1932]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE 1996 INDUCTEES TO THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP HALL OF FAME\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI\n\n of illinois\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an\noutstanding achievement by a select group of Chicago area business\npeople. I am proud to salute the entrepreneurs and founders of small\nand medium sized businesses on their induction to the 12th Annual\nEntrepreneurship Hall of Fame, which was held on Thursday, October 10,\n1996, in Chicago, IL.\n The Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies in the College of Business\nAdministration at the University of Illinois at Chicago cofounded and\nsponsored the Entrepreneurship Hall of Fame honoring outstanding\nbusiness leaders whose spirit helps keep America's business community\nstrong and vital. In addition, I would like to commend the many\ncosponsors in the business community who have lent their considerable\nprestige and resources to making this hall of fame a success.\n Today I would like to congratulate these business leader inductees,\neach of whom is listed below, for using their imaginations to foster an\nexcellent program which enhances the quality of higher education and\nunderscores the value of entrepreneurship in America.\n The 1996 inductees include: Melvina Bechina, Thomas Burrell, Michael\nT. Clune, Philip J. Cooper, Walter G. Cornett III, Patrick J. Evans,\nJohn S. Gates, Jr., Emilio Gervilla, Hossein Jamali, Francois Sanchez,\nJames Hanig, Letitia Herrea, Joe Jemsek, Edward Kaplan, Leonard H.\nLavin, Michael Levy, Sandra Goeken Martis, William Merchantz, Ralph G.\nMoore, David W. Mulligan, Christopher C. Multhauf, Irv Shapiro, Joe\nSilverberg, Gene Silverberg, Richard A Stein, Shari K Whitley, and Phil\nYeager.\n Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally commend these entrepreneurs\nwho have been such an inspiration in my community.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1933-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT COMPLETION ACT", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1933", "E1933", "[{\"name\": \"Wes Cooley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2392\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1933", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1933]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT COMPLETION ACT\n\n ______\n\n HON. WES COOLEY\n\n of oregon\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last year,\nI have worked diligently to resolve long-standing water disputes in the\nUmatilla Basin of northeast Oregon. With the help of Senator Hatfield,\naffected irrigation districts in the Basin (the districts, the\nConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (the Tribes),\nand the State of Oregon (the State), we were able to fashion a\ncompromise which struck the delicate balance between environmental\nenhancement and the needs of the local economy. However, this consensus\ncould not have been reached if all sides were not willing to\ncompromise. Because of this, I am somewhat puzzled by recent statements\nthat place the blame for the bill's failure on the irrigation\ndistricts.\n H.R. 2392, my bill to adjust the boundaries for the four irrigation\ndistricts in the Umatilla Basin, has undergone many changes in the past\nyear. The original draft of the bill would have simply adjusted these\nboundaries upon enactment. However, it has always been my intention to\nlisten carefully to all members of the community in the hopes of\nultimately crafting a proposal which has unanimous support. So, when\nthe Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation (the Tribes)\nraised concerns about the need for a continued commitment to\nenvironmental enhancement, and a new NEPA study prior to boundary\nadjustment, I added those provisions to the bill.\n The compromise agreed to by the Tribes, the districts, and the State\nof Oregon would make the boundary adjustments contingent upon\ncompletion of a NEPA study and approval of the Secretary of the\nInterior--a major concession on the part of the districts who were\nseeking long-term stability. In addition, I added language that\nrequires the districts to donate 6,500 acre feet of water per year for\nenvironmental enhancement--as their interim contract requires--until a\nportion of Phase III of the Umatilla Basin Project large enough to\nexchange 90 cubic feet per second is completed and operational. These\nprovisions were added in a good faith attempt to address the concerns\nof the Tribes.\n Unfortunately, despite the agreement of all affected interests in the\nBasin, the Clinton Administration threatened to veto the bill. They\nwanted to alter the bill so that the Secretary of the Interior had full\ndiscretion to not only adjust the boundaries, but to alter the size of\nthe new boundaries. In short, they wanted the authorization to do\nsomething for which they are already authorized, but have failed to\naccomplish. The Administration wanted more spending authority without\naddressing the basic issue of boundary adjustments. In short, they\nwanted to have their cake and eat it too. I could not support a change\nthat would render the status quo.\n The compromise reached by all of the interests in the Umatilla Basin\nwould have succeeded because each of the parties had an economic stake\nin seeing that the other parties' objectives were attained. The\ndistricts' opposition to the Administration's request to negate the one\nsection of the bill in which they have an interest should not be viewed\nas uncooperative. By removing sections from the bill that pertain to\nthe districts, we would be left with an unbalanced, unworkable solution\nthat would not solve the complex problems in the Basin, or provide\nlong-term stability for all who live there.\n Even more troubling than the Clinton Administration's threatened veto\nover a procedural technicality, are some of the statements that have\nbeen made since the bill failed to pass. These statements argue that\nthe districts' failure to compromise was responsible for the bill's\ninability to win Administration support. Nothing could be further from\nthe truth.\n Once again, I would point out the progress we have made in the last\nyear. What once was a bill that only contained boundary adjustments\nupon enactment for the four districts, eventually contained provisions\nthat first, authorized $64 million for construction of Phase III of the\nUmatilla Basin Project; second, authorized $6.5 million for the Tribes'\nshare of a joint City of Pendleton/Tribes' water storage facility;\nthird, authorized $500,000 for development of a water management plan,\nand a ground water/surface water model of the Umatilla Basin; fourth,\nauthorized $400,000 annually for the operation of Phases I, II, and\nIII; fifth, required that the Secretary of the Interior enter into\nnegotiations with the State of Oregon to determine the Tribes' water\nright claim; sixth, required the districts to donate 6,500 acre feet of\nwater for environmental enhancement until a portion of Phase III is\nbuilt large enough to exchange 90 cubic feet per second; and seventh,\nrequired a NEPA study to be conducted prior to the adjustment of the\ndistricts' boundaries.\n Many of these provisions, particularly numbers 6 and 7, constitute\nsubstantial movement on the part of the districts, and should not be\ndiscounted in the rush to lay blame on any one party.\n I still maintain that the only way to address the Umatilla Basin's\nlong-standing water issues is to work together in a cooperative\neffort--something I felt was accomplished this year. Although I will\nnot be returning for the 105th Congress, I hope that my successor--\nwhoever it may be--builds upon the agreements reached in the last year,\nand helps to foster long-term stability for the environment and the\nlocal economy in the Umatilla Basin.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1933-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HONORING HOUSTON'S FIREFIGHTERS", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "HONORING", "E1933", "E1934", "[{\"name\": \"Ken Bentsen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1933", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1933-E1934]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HONORING HOUSTON'S FIREFIGHTERS\n\n ______\n\n HON. KEN BENTSEN\n\n of texas\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join Sigma Gamma Rho\nSorority, Incorporated, Gamma Phi Sigma Chapter, in honoring Houston's\nfirefighters for their outstanding service to our community. The\nchapter will honor Houston's firefighters at their 16th annual Status\nof Women Luncheon on October 26, 1996.\n We seldom think of firefighters unless we hear a screaming siren or\nsee the flashing light of a fire engine. But the fact that we don't\noften think about firefighters is a testament to how well they do their\njob--we comfortably go about our everyday lives because we know\n\n[[Page E1934]]\n\nthat these dedicated people stand ready to respond quickly and\neffectively in an emergency. Much of firefighting is undramatic--\nkeeping equipment in condition, teaching fire prevention, anticipating\ncauses of fire. But a life-and-death emergency is always only a 911\ncall away, and firefighters and their families live with that constant\nrisk. For that we say thank you.\n I salute the Houston firefighters honorees who have served the\ncommunity so well: Clifford J. Thompson, Willie S. Bright, Milton\nAlfred, Samuel Kemp, Willie D. Cooper, Walter T. Brooks, James Johnson,\nJr., Rudolph Cline, Aaron Bernard, Otis L. Burns, Edward Jackson,\nBricey Childress, James Perry, James Haekney, Larry Kaperhart, Albert\nD. Robinson, Sr., Julio Terry, Charles Wheeler, Herb Kimbrel, Otis\nJordan, Chief Hershel Julian, Thomas E. Patterson, Ozell Love, Robin\nAllen, Annette Thomas, Maria Jordan, Capt. Gary Cooper, Chief John\nMayes, Wilmer Monmouth, Jr., Robyn Waller, and Frank Jackson.\n Again, I would like to congratulate and thank the Houston\nfirefighters and the men and women who have dedicated themselves to\nserving others and keeping our city safe.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1933", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO JAMES COLLINS", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1933", "E1933", "[{\"name\": \"Sam Farr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1933", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1933]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO JAMES COLLINS\n\n ______\n\n HON. SAM FARR\n\n of california\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness\nat the recent passing of my good friend, James Collins. Jim, who was a\nmember of the Salinas City Council, died recently from complications\ncaused by cancer. He was 66.\n For much of the past 20 years Jim has loyally and faithfully served\nthe people of his hometown of Salinas. He is remembered by myself and\ncolleagues as an active and devoted public servant with a keen sense of\nhumor that often lightened tense debates. His devotion to education and\npublic service was unequaled.\n Jim was born in Santa Rosa and moved to Salinas, CA, where he lived\nfor 60 years. He attended the public schools in Salinas and graduated\nfrom San Jose State University in 1962. He taught physical education at\nlocal public schools in the Salinas Valley for 23 years.\n He was first appointed to the Salinas City Council in 1975 and\nremained there until 1983 when he stepped down. He ran again for\nelection in 1989 and remained on the council until his death. Jim\nserved as mayor pro-tem four times and sat on numerous committees and\nboards throughout Monterey County. He was the chairman of the Monterey-\nSalinas Transit Board, and was a member of the Fort Ord Reuse\nAuthority. He was also a member of the California Rodeo Board for 30\nyears.\n Jim's commitment to the youth of Salinas was unsurpassed. He coached\ndozens of youth teams and spent many years officiating at high school\nfootball and basketball games. He was instrumental in creating the\nBreadbox Recreation Center for youth and he also helped to establish\nthe Police Athletic League.\n Jim Collins' commitment to the city of Salinas was commendable. He\nwill be remembered by his family and all of the citizens of Salinas for\nhis 15 years of public service to the community. My thoughts and\nprayers remain with his family on his passing. He will be sorely missed\nby all of us.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1934-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO OUR LADY OF THE RIDGE VOLLEYBALL CHAMPIONS", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1934", "E1934", "[{\"name\": \"William O. Lipinski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1934", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1934]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO OUR LADY OF THE RIDGE VOLLEYBALL CHAMPIONS\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI\n\n of illinois\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an\noutstanding group of volleyball players in my district. This special\ngroup of players are students at Our Lady of the Ridge High School in\nChicago Ridge, IL. What makes this group stand out and shine is that\nwhen other schools were out for the summer, this group of players\nextended their season into late June and captured their program's first\nnational title. This is truly a momentous triumph and I am very proud\nto represent such a fine group of young women in Congress.\n This year's Amateur Athletic Union Junior National Volleyball\nChampionships were held in Des Moines, IA, on June 21-25. This year, a\ndivision was started which included volleyball players ages 10 years\nand younger. The division was created to allow younger players to\ncompete in the national competition. This year 10 young ladies from\nlast season's fourth grade team received maximum benefit from the\nexposure.\n The team was led by tournament MVP Jessica Strama and All-Americans\nKellie and Katie Pratl. Additionally, Elizabeth Rutan, Cori Omiecinski,\nMegan Liston, Laura Dirschl, and Katherine Casey played an important\nrole in their aggressive floor play during the game. Stefanie Krawisz\nand Lauren Uher were top in their field for their outstanding serving\nability during the game. The Our Lady of the Ridge team was coached by\nMilena Strama and Ron Pratl. The team ended its season with an\nimpressive 77-23 record. Finally, the team could not have come as far\nas they did if it were not for their many sponsors and supporters from\nthe parish community of Our Lady of the Ridge. As the team coach Ron\nPratl said, ``There was a team of supporters that made it possible for\nus to get here, and then there was the team that won the gold. My hat\ngoes off to all of them.''\n Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have such a fine group of players and\nsupporters in my district. This group of hard working young volleyball\nplayers are truly an inspiration and I am pleased to be given the\nopportunity to honor their hard work today.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1934-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO EUGENE A. DELLEA", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1934", "E1934", "[{\"name\": \"Joseph P. Kennedy II\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1934", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1934]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO EUGENE A. DELLEA\n\n ______\n\n HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II\n\n of massachusetts\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the pleasures of\nserving this great body, is the opportunity to recognize outstanding\nindividuals from across the Nation. It is with great pride that I rise\nto congratulate Eugene A. Dellea of Massachusetts.\n On October 16 of this year, the Hillcrest Educational Centers, Inc.,\ndedicated two student dormitories in Lenox, MA, in Mr. Dellea's name.\nThe Hillcrest Educational Centers is a nonprofit residential treatment\nfacility for abused children from around the country. During his long\ntenure as a member of Hillcrest's Board of Directors, Mr. Dellea has\nalways worked hard to ensure that the children at Hillcrest receive the\nbest care possible. It is fitting that he is being honored in this way\nfor his many years of dedication and compassion.\n Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak on behalf, of everyone who has\never worked with Mr. Dellea or benefited from his good works, when I\noffer my warmest congratulations.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1934-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO BARBARA AND DAVID DANBOM", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1934", "E1935", "[{\"name\": \"Sam Farr\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1934", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1934-E1935]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO BARBARA AND DAVID DANBOM\n\n ______\n\n HON. SAM FARR\n\n of california\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a\nremarkable couple who have served and protected ocean waters and\nresources. They are impressive figures who have served the local\neconomy as well as the local environment, both being strong\nparticipants in the fishing industry. I am proud to announce that\nBarbara and David Danbom have been named ``Ocean Heroes'' in\nconjunction with the Smithsonian Institution's Ocean Planet exhibition\nnow on display in San Francisco.\n Barbara and David are among a group of 10 individuals and families on\nthe west coast who have been bestowed with this honor. The Danboms, the\nonly commercial fishing family among those honored, have fished out of\nMoss Landing, CA, for over 30 years. Those selected for the ``Ocean\nHero'' honor were chosen for their outstanding work in protecting ocean\nwaters and resources.\n The Danboms are well known for the top quality frozen troll kings\nthey process aboard their boat the Vega II: they are one of the few at-\nsea salmon freezing operations along the California coast, serving an\nupscale restaurant chain in southern California. As impressive as their\nbusiness operation has been, their dedication to a sustainable fishery\nhas been even more notable. Dave Danbom, was a member of the first\nCalifornia Citizens Advisory Committee on Salmon & Steelhead Trout\nformed in 1970; and has served briefly on the committee when it\nwas reestablished in 1984.\n\n Dave Danbom was also a founding director of the Pacific Coast\nFederation of Fishermen's Associations and vice president for 9 years.\nAn early proponent of California's commercial salmon stamp, in 1982\nDanbom instigated the expansion of that highly successful program,\nwhich is now the State's single largest source of dollars for salmon\nrestoration. He currently sits on the committee overseeing the\nexpenditure for monies from that fund. In 1983 Dave was a ``Highliner\nof the Year'' recipient, the fishing industry's highest award. He was\nthe first salmon troller appointed to a seat on the Pacific Fishery\nManagement Council, serving two terms.\n Barbara Danbom, an accomplished vessel skipper and fisherman in her\nown right, works alongside husband Dave during the fishing season. In\nthe off season she tends to much\n\n[[Page E1935]]\n\nof the business and correspondence while Dave is in meetings. Her\nsupport has made it possible for Dave Danbom to dedicate as much time\nas he has to the betterment of the fishery.\n In recent years the Danboms worked with myself and my predecessor to\nthis office, now White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, for the\nestablishment of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which\nstretches from San Luis Obispo County to Point Reyes and is managed out\nof both Monterey and San Francisco.\n The Danboms' devotion to the preservation of ocean waters and\nresources is exemplary. It is an honor to have David and Barbara Danbom\non the Central Coast of California. I know I am speaking for the\nresidents of the 17th District when I say that we are proud of Barbara\nand David Danbom.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1934", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO RAYMOND TESTA", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1934", "E1934", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1934", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1934]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO RAYMOND TESTA\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an\noutstanding member of the Young Italian (Athletic, Cultural,\nEducational, Social/Service) Club of UNICO National--Raymond Testa.\n Mr. Speaker, for the past 7 years, UNICO has been sharing fellowship,\nsupport, benevolence, friendship, and hope with those less fortunate.\nIt provides a living example of what the Roman Statesman Seneca meant\nwhen he wrote ``that whenever there is a human being, there is an\nopportunity for kindness.''\n Mr. Raymond Testa is an ideal example of the type of person that\nUNICO represents. He graduated from Providence College in 1959 with a\nbachelor of arts degree in biology and a minor in chemistry. After\nworking for his father in his wholesale fruit and produce store in\nWaterbury, CT, Raymond decided to attend graduate school. He enrolled\nin Syracuse University and received a master's degree (1964) followed\nby a doctorate degree (1966) in microbiology, with a minor in\nbiochemistry.\n In the years since his graduation, Raymond has been involved in\nfermentation yield improvement, biosynthesis, and in vitro and in vivo\nevaluations of new antibiotics for medical and agricultural uses.\nFurthermore, he is the coauthor of numerous publications, has delivered\nnotable presentations at national and international conferences and is\nthe co-inventor of many patents related to new antibiotics and their\nutility. He is presently the section director of infectious disease\nresearch.\n Furthermore, Raymond is a family man and civic leader. He has been\nactive in numerous organizations, including past president of the\nSociety for Industrial Microbiology and Chair of the Cedar Grove\nAdvisory Council. Finally, along with his wife Carmel, Raymond is\nexpecting his second grandchild at the beginning of October.\n Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Raymond Testa for his tremendous\ncontributions in the field of microbiology and for being a\ncompassionate human being.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1935", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SIERRA CLUB'S ANTI-GOP EFFORTS ASSISTED BY REP. BOEHLERT", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1935", "E1936", "[{\"name\": \"Wes Cooley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1935", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1935-E1936]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SIERRA CLUB'S ANTI-GOP EFFORTS ASSISTED BY REP. BOEHLERT\n\n ______\n\n HON. WES COOLEY\n\n of oregon\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, during my tenure in Congress, I\nhave been astounded by the intensity of partisan political activities\nby national environmental groups. The Sierra Club has clearly been\namong the most partisan and politically active of all these groups.\n According to the Federal Election Commission's records from July\n1995, the Sierra Club has contributed a total of $8,500 to four\nRepublican candidates for Congress and $85,162 to 47 Democratic\ncandidates during the current election cycle. The September/October\n1996 issue of Sierra magazine reported the group had endorsed 131\ncandidates for House and Senate. Not surprisingly, only 7 of these were\nRepublicans.\n Moreover, during last winter's special U.S. Senate race in my State,\nthe Sierra Club reported spending $168,454 in independent expenditures\non behalf of Democratic nominee Ron Wyden. Many similar independent\nexpenditures are currently underway throughout the Nation.\n I was dismayed, but not surprised, to learn that Representative\nSherry Boehlert, cochairman of the Speaker's Task Force on the\nEnvironment, has aided and abetted the Sierra Club in its efforts to\ndefeat Republicans this November. Consequently, I signed the following\nletter along with many other free market and conservative groups asking\nthe Speaker to discipline Representative Boehlert for his unforgivable\nactions. I urge my colleagues to read this letter and learn more about\nRepresentative Boehlert's efforts to help the Sierra Club elect a\nDemocrat majority in Congress.\n\n September 16, 1996.\n Hon. Newt Gingrich,\n Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,\n DC.\n Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing to express our concerns\n about recent activities of Representative Sherwood Boehlert,\n which we believe undermine the mission and credibility of\n your Speaker's Task Force on the Environment. You have stated\n that the value of your Task Force is that it offers a forum\n in which members with widely varying views on environmental\n and regulatory issues can learn from each other in an\n atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. Rep. Boehlert has\n poisoned that atmosphere.\n On August 13 during the Republican National Convention,\n Rep. Boehlert was the featured guest at a Sierra Club\n fundraising reception at the Harbor Island West Hotel in San\n Diego. The Sierra Club presented him with their ``highest\n award for elected officials.'' In his remarks, Rep. Boehlert\n concluded by telling the audience that a ``cleaner,\n healthier, safer environment is what I am working for. That\n is what you are working for, and we are partners.''\n Rep. Boehlert's partners at the Sierra Club are doing\n something else besides working for a cleaner, healthier,\n safer environment. They are also engaged in a massive effort\n to ``take back the Congress,'' which their president, Adam\n Werbach, recently described as ``the worst Congress ever,\n period.'' The political director of the Sierra Club, Daniel\n J. Weiss, has described their election strategy as a ``multi-\n million dollar educational campaign.'' Of 131 House and\n Senate candidates officially endorsed by the Sierra Club in\n the current issue of Sierra magazine, seven are Republicans.\n The challenger is endorsed in Georgia's sixth Congressional\n district. FEC reports in July show that in the current\n election cycle the Sierra Club had contributed a total of\n $8,500 to four Republican candidates and $85,162 to 47\n Democratic candidates. In addition, the Sierra Club reported\n spending $168,454 in independent expenditures during last\n winter's special Senate election in Oregon on behalf of Ron\n Wyden. Similar independent expenditures are planned for the\n fall campaign in many races.\n Media packets distributed by the Sierra Club at their San\n Diego fund-raiser viciously and unfairly lambasted\n Congressional attempts to reform and improve federal\n environmental laws and attack you personally in the most\n outrageous terms (as do Sierra Club fundraising letters).\n Immediately before their fund-raiser, Rep. Boehlert's\n partners at the Sierra Club sponsored a protest rally and\n walk along the harbor in San Diego to ``take back the\n Congress.'' One protester carried a homemade banner that\n depicted a bulldozer driven by you with the words ``Private\n Property Rights'' emblazoned on the blade. Underneath were\n the words ``Stop GOP Terrorism'' with a swastika drawn\n inside the O in GOP.\n It should also be mentioned that Sierra magazine featured\n Representative Richard Pombo, the other co-chairman of your\n Task Force on the Environment, as its first ``Eco-Thug of the\n Month.'' It has also featured at least five other members of\n your Task Force as Eco-Thugs of the Month: Representatives\n Billy Tauzin, Andrea Seastrand, Nathan Deal, Helen Chenoweth,\n and Jimmy Hayes. In addition, the Sierra Club has officially\n endorsed the opponents of two other members of the Task\n Force's Steering Committee, Representatives James Longley and\n Brian Bilbray.\n The Sierra Club is not the only radical organization Rep.\n Boehlert has been working with to thwart Congress's\n environmental reform efforts. In a January 30 letter to the\n legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council\n thanking NRDC's staff for their help, he wrote, ``At this\n time in 1995, the prospects for environmental protection\n looked bleak.'' On July 23, the news service Greenwire\n reported that, ``Starting this week, the Natural Resources\n Defense Council will air 60-second radio ads against 16 House\n members with `anti-environmental voting patterns.' '' An\n Associated Press story published in the November 2, 1995\n Atlanta Constitution reports that Rep. Boehlert attended an\n environmental protest rally on the Capitol steps and ``joined\n in the chant `Stop the rollback. Free the planet.' ''\n We enthusiastically applaud the efforts made by the 104th\n Congress to reform our nation's disastrous command-and-\n control environmental policies. Given Rep. Boehlert's actions\n outlined above to stymie those efforts and to defeat those\n who support them, we respectfully suggest that it is\n inappropriate for him to serve as co-chairman of your Task\n Force on the Environment, a position of great responsibility\n that gives him power to control what environmental\n legislation can come to the floor.\n We are enclosing relevant supporting materials. We look\n forward to working with you to address these concerns.\n Sincerely yours,\n Malcolm Wallop, Chairman, Frontiers of Freedom; Paul M.\n Weyrich, President, Free Congress Foundation.\n Joseph M. Phillips, Director, Federal Affairs, National\n Rifle Association I.L.A.; Dennis Hollingsworth, Director of\n Natural Resources, Riverside County Farm Bureau; Peter T.\n Flaherty, Chairman, Conservative Campaign Fund; Amy Moritz,\n President, National Center for Public Policy Research; Carol\n W. LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of\n America, Inc.; Nancie G. Marzulla, President and Chief Legal\n Counsel Defenders of Property Rights.\n Morton C. Blackwell, Republican National Committeeman for\n Virginia; David Ridenour, Director, Environmental Policy Task\n Force; Chuck Cushman, Executive Director, American Land\n Rights Association; Fred L. Smith, President, Competitive\n Enterprise Institute; Margaret Ann Riegle, Chairman, The\n Fairness to Landowners Committee; Jeffrey P. Harris, Exec.\n Director, National Coalition for Public Lands and Natural\n Resources.\n Met Johnson, Executive Director, Western States Coalition;\n G. Ray Arnett, President, Arnett & Associates; David B.\n Howard, President, Land Rights Foundation; The Honorable\n Donald Amador, Commissioner, OHMVR Div., Calif. Department of\n Parks and Recreation; Douglas Domenech, Executive Director,\n Madison Project; Kathleen Marquardt, Chairman, Putting People\n First.\n Dr. S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental\n Policy Project; The Honorable Wes Cooley, Member of Congress,\n Oregon, Second District; Karen Kerrigan, President, Small\n Business Survival Committee; Clark L. Collins, Executive\n Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition; Henry Lamb, Exec. Vice\n President, Environmental Conservation Organization; Thomas A.\n DeWeese, President, American Policy Center.\n David M. Rothbard, President, Comm. for a Constructive\n Tomorrow; Bruce C. Grefrath, Washington Representative,\n National Inholders Association; Y. Leon Favreau, President,\n Multiple Use Association; Caren Cowan, Executive Director,\n New Mexico Wool Growers Inc.; William T. Riley, Northwest\n Council of Governments; Robert L. Gardner, President, Curry\n County Oregon Project.\n Edmund Peterson, Chairman, Project 21; William E. Theis,\n Steering Committee, Stop Taking Our Property; Jack E. Phelps,\n Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association; Helen A.\n Baker, Director, Women For California; William Pickell,\n General Manager, Washington Contract Loggers Assn.; Randal L.\n Pelton, Chairman, Chelan County Citizens Coalition.\n Edward H. Waldheim, President, California Off-Road Vehicle\n Association; Peggy A. Wagner, Director, Montanans for\n Multiple Use; Dr. Bonner R. Cohen, Editor, EPA Watch; R.O.\n Voight, President, Maine Conservation\n\n[[Page E1936]]\n\n Rights Institute; Adam Dubitsky, President, ABD\n Communications; Robert MacMullin, President, MacMullin\n Forestry & Logging.\n William J. Murray, Chairman, Government Is Not God PAC;\n Barbara Mossman, Spokesman, American Loggers Solidarity;\n Chuck Chase, Director, Eastern Oregon Mining Association;\n Patricia A. Bradburn, President, Virginians for Property\n Rights; Darlene Slusher, President, Accord Chapter, People\n for the West!; Karl W. Mote, Retired, Mining Industry; Harry\n A. Baker, Jr., Chief Instructor, California 44 Education &\n Training; Robert J. Smith, Senior Environmental Scholar,\n Competitive Enterprise Institute; Mike Dail, President,\n Federal Land Bank Association of Mason.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1936-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HONORING SOUTH POST OAK BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 37TH ANNIVERSARY", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "HONORING", "E1936", "E1936", "[{\"name\": \"Ken Bentsen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1936", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1936]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HONORING SOUTH POST OAK BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 37TH ANNIVERSARY\n\n ______\n\n HON. KEN BENTSEN\n\n of texas\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor South Post Oak Baptist\nChurch in my district as it celebrates its 37th anniversary, and I\nextend to Pastor Remus E. Wright a special congratulations for all that\nhe has done for the church and for our community.\n Under Pastor Wright's leadership, the church has experienced rapid\ngrowth. Once as small as 150 members, the church today serves more than\n2,000 members. Pastor Wright has established 20 new ministries and\nenhanced several others so that the church can better fulfill its\nmission of Christian service to our community.\n Pastor Wright's concern for people goes far beyond the membership of\nSouth Post Oak Baptist Church. He is extensively involved in the\ncommunity around the church. He currently serves on community boards\nfor two high schools in Houston. In May 1994, the city of Houston and\nMayor Bob Lanier proclaimed Rev. Ramus E. Wright Day in Houston in\nrecognition of the work he has done at South Post Oak and in the\ncommunity.\n Pastor Wright has been an example for all of us through his community\nleadership, his caring for others, and his deep and abiding faith. By\nfollowing that example, the members of South Post Oak Baptist Church\nhave enriched our community for all of us. As the church celebrates its\n37th anniversary, I want to express may deep appreciation to Pastor\nWright and the members of the church for their good work, and I wish\nthem well in the future. I have no doubt that their many ministries\nwill continue to flourish and prosper to the betterment of us all.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1936-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE VILLAGE OF BURR RIDGE ON ITS 40TH ANNIVERSARY", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1936", "E1936", "[{\"name\": \"William O. Lipinski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1936", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1936]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE VILLAGE OF BURR RIDGE ON ITS 40TH ANNIVERSARY\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI\n\n of illinois\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an\noutstanding community in my district that is celebrating its 40th\nanniversary, Burr Ridge, IL.\n Burr Ridge was incorporated October 30, 1956, as a 1-mile square\narea. The village was originally called Harvester in honor of the\nInternational Harvester plant located nearby. The village steadily\nexpanded and was renamed Burr Ridge in 1961 in honor of a stand of Burr\nOak trees located on a small ridge in the community.\n Through wise planning and controlled growth, the village has combined\nlight industrial areas with subdivisions of single family homes in all\nprice ranges. From the original 300 residents, Burr Ridge has grown to\nnearly 9,000 inhabitants.\n Mr. Speaker, I salute the Village of Burr Ridge on 40 years of\nserving as a model community in suburban Chicago.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1936-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE URBAN PULSE MAGAZINE SHOW", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1936", "E1936", "[{\"name\": \"Joseph P. Kennedy II\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1936", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1936]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE URBAN PULSE MAGAZINE SHOW\n\n ______\n\n HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II\n\n of massachusetts\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this\nopportunity to recognize the Urban Pulse Magazine Show. The Urban Pulse\nMagazine Show will celebrate its expansion from its grass-roots in\nBoston cable to a New England regional cablecast which will be viewed\non WNDS-50TV. The show is committed to excellence in the production of\nquality urban contemporary programming. Serving 356 surrounding\ncommunities, the Urban Pulse magazine's programming reflects the needs,\ninterests and diverse lifestyles of urban America.\n Since its inception in January of 1996, the energetic and committed\nstaff of the Urban Pulse magazine, have provided entertaining,\neducational, and informative African American programming. The Urban\nPulse magazine creatively mixes such public affairs issues as\neducation, youth, and local and national politics, with series such as\n``Mo-Jazz'' and ``The Urban Roundtable.''\n I ask my colleagues to join me in paying a special tribute to the\nUrban Pulse magazine and their continued success.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1936-5", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO ROBERT H. STEINER", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1936", "E1937", "[{\"name\": \"David E. Bonior\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1936", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1936-E1937]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO ROBERT H. STEINER\n\n ______\n\n HON. DAVID E. BONIOR\n\n of michigan\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the treasurer\nof the charter township of Clinton, MI, Mr. Robert H. Steiner. After 33\nyears of devoted service to the people of Clinton Township, Bob Steiner\nhas decided to retire.\n For over three decades, the residents knew they could count on Bob\nSteiner to perform his responsibilities with professionalism and\ncompetence. In addition to his role as the township treasurer, Bob\nSteiner has served as a member of the Planning Commission for 9 years\nand as a township trustee for 4 terms of office. In his ongoing attempt\nto serve the public more ably, he has taken numerous other leadership\npositions.\n For example, Bob is currently the director of three groups vital to\nthe well-being of everyone in the community: the Clinton Township\nEconomic Development Corp., the Michigan Townships Association, and the\nGrosse Pointes Clinton Refuse Disposal Authority.\n The list of other organizations in which Bob has been involved, is\nsimply too lengthy to include. But it is safe to say that if there was\na concern raised in Clinton Township, Bob was responsive to it.\n His many civic responsibilities did not prevent him from devoting his\ntime, energy, and talents to many community projects through volunteer\nwork. Bob and his family have been active in their church and in the\nClinton Valley and Chippewa Valley Kiwanis Clubs. He has worked on\nbehalf of the Clinton Township Goodfellows organization and many\nschool, academic, and sports activities.\n It was nearly 25 years ago that I first knocked on the Steiner door\nand met Bob and his wonderful wife, Alice. Since that time, Bob and I\nhave enjoyed a close working relationship on local, State, and Federal\nissues. I have watched with respect as the township has grown under his\nsteady leadership. The true measure of his commitment to the people of\nClinton Township, is his son's similar interest in public service,\nobviously learned and nurtured at home.\n After 33 years of public service, I thank Bob for his fine work and\ncommend him for his exceptional dedication and outstanding\ncontributions. He will be missed by us all. We wish him the very best\nin the future as he enters a well-deserved retirement. As family and\nfriends and associates gather on Friday, November 8, 1996, to honor Bob\nand Alice on\n\n[[Page E1937]]\n\nthis special occasion, I join in the chorus of congratulations and\nappreciation.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1936", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO MSGR. LOUIS BIHR", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1936", "E1936", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1936", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1936]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO MSGR. LOUIS BIHR\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a real\nAmerican hero. I am talking of Msgr. Louis Bihr, pastor of Immaculate\nHeart of Mary Church in Wayne, NJ.\n Mr. Speaker, Monsignor Bihr (``Father Lou'') has devoted over 25\nyears of his life to preaching god's word. Known for his devotion to\nmass, prayer, love and kindness, Father Lou has served at Blessed\nSacrament Parish, t. Joseph's Parish, St. Boniface Parish and St.\nGerald's Church. Mr. Speaker, he has been cherished by countless\nnumbers of individuals in the religious world.\n Apart from his preaching in the church, Mr. Speaker, he has continued\nto spread the word of God in surrounding communities. He moved from\ndirector of the Diocesan Youth Department/CYO to the elected position\nof assistant chairman of region II of the National CYO Federation. He\nled the development of a diocesanwide high school retreat. He brought\nYouth Haven, a shelter for runaway teenagers, to the community.\nFinally, Father Lou initiated the opening of a children's day care\ncenter, El Mundo del Nino.\n Mr. Speaker, Msgr. Louis Bihr has been chosen as ``Man of the Year''\nby St. Gerald's Church. He is also man of the year in my eyes. I ask\nthat we all acknowledge the work and life of this man. He has fought\nfor the good of our country, our hearts, and our souls.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1937-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "``I AM ME''", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1937", "E1938", "[{\"name\": \"James L. Oberstar\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1937", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1937-E1938]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n ``I AM ME''\n\n ______\n\n HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR\n\n of minnesota\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share with my\ncolleagues the national award winning essay of Arlene Helderman from\nInternational Falls, MN. I offer Arlen's superb presentation, ``I Am\nMe'' to serve as an enlightened statement to the Nation on the sanctity\nof human life. I want to offer my profound congratulations to Arlene\nand the Koochiching County Right-to-Life Committee and the Minnesota\nCitizens Concerned for Life organization for their sponsorship of this\nannual competition.\n\n I Am Me\n\n (Pro-Life Speech by Arlene Helderman)\n\n I am me.\n In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me.\n There are persons who have some parts like me,\n But no one adds up like me,\n Therefore, everything that comes out of me,\n Is authentically mine, because I alone chose it.\n I own everything about me:\n My body--including everything it does,\n My mind--including all its thoughts and ideas,\n My eyes--including all the images they behold,\n My feelings--whatever they may be,\n And all of my actions--whether they be to others or to\n myself.\n I own my fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears.\n I own all my triumphs and successes, all my failures and\n mistakes.\n I own me, and therefore I engineer me,\n To work in my best interests,\n I can see, hear, feel, think, say and do.\n I am me.\n\n I am here today to talk about life. I am here, I am alive,\n and I am me because of a choice my mother made. Her choice is\n what accounts for many of the decisions I make now, because\n of the love present in her choice. I am me because my mom\n chose life.\n Everything that makes me me, was decided at conception,\n when forty-six human chromosomes laid out my genetic code.\n All characteristics were then determined, such as sex, eye\n color, shoe size, intelligence--many characteristics we now\n take for granted. But it was then that they were laid out, to\n create the me that I am. Only twelve weeks later during my\n precious development, I had the ability to experience pain--\n the same pain I would one day experience at age twelve, when\n I would clumsily break my nose, I had tiny fingernails--the\n same fingernails I would paint so precariously years\n later, the night before my first formal dance. And my feet\n were perfectly shaped by this time--the same feet that I\n use now, to flex and point and dance and leap during my\n gymnastics routines. It's amazing, but at an early six\n weeks of my development, I had brain waves--brain waves\n that today enable me to create stories for English and\n calculate statistics for Math. And at an unbelievable\n three weeks, I had a heartbeat--the same heart which beats\n at seventeen, in anticipation of future dreams and\n aspirations. I am me, whether it be then or now. But I am\n only me because my mom chose life. The story of my\n mother's choice to keep my life is like no story you have\n ever heard, and you will probably never hear another quite\n like it.\n Everything was so normal. My mother was twenty-nine years\n old, and she and my father were a young couple with a four-\n year-old little girl, a white house, (with no picket fence),\n but picture perfect in their eyes. As springtime neared, she\n discovered she was pregnant with her second child, which was\n good news. The first couple months went well, and she had\n lots of energy. But as time crept on into summer, she felt\n tired all the time and became ill with bronchitis. She\n started to lose weight, and she constantly prayed for the\n doctors to find out exactly what was wrong with her. After\n many tests and many wrong answers, the doctors diagnosed my\n mother with leukemia. The doctors told her it was crucial to\n start chemotherapy treatments right away, because she would\n only live six weeks without them. Unfortunately, they also\n said the baby would not survive with the treatment, and that\n her best chance would be to abort the unborn child.\n It was fall, a time when things die naturally--leaves,\n flowers, grass; but what about--unnaturally? My mother had\n started her fifth month. She could feel the baby move inside\n her and it was like someone was trying to tear her heart out.\n She had to make a choice. Did she want to destroy her baby so\n she could have a greater chance at living, or did she want to\n continue on and hope, only to be told she'd have a greater\n chance at dying? Despite her threatening condition, she chose\n life.\n In the next month, my mother experienced more pain than\n most people could ever imagine. She had a bone marrow test\n taken, a test so painful, that my petite mother, tore a metal\n railing from the hospital bed in the midst of her agony. She\n endured over twenty shots a day, forced herself to eat for\n the sake of her baby, was hooked up to IV's, and lost so much\n weight, that even at five months pregnant she only weighed\n eighty pounds. She endured so much pain, and she did it all\n for me. I don't know how I can ever thank my mom for the\n sacrifices she made for me, but the faith and love she had in\n me is something that will live in my heart, forever.\n Another month passed, and my mother was feeling a little\n better. At seven months of the pregnancy, November twenty-\n fifth started out like any other day. She was weighed, and\n her IV's were changed, but by ten o'clock that morning, she\n was starting labor. The Doctors explained that most likely\n the baby would not survive, and for her safety, my mother\n should be flown to a larger hospital with better medical\n facilities. The hospital in her small town did not have the\n proper equipment if the baby was to survive. And so, although\n my mom persisted there was not enough time to make it to the\n hospital, they boarded her, a nurse, and a pilot onto a small\n air ambulance for an unforgettable journey. Halfway to the\n hospital I was born and I could not breathe. The nurse\n encouraged my mom to pray as she gave me resuscitation to\n try and keep me alive. The pilot radioed ahead for\n ambulances and to the hospital so everyone was ready for\n my arrival. The rest of the flight, forty minutes, was the\n longest forty minutes in my mother's life; but as we\n neared the landing, she thought she saw my tiny lip\n quiver, and it gave her hope.\n For days, I was placed on oxygen to breathe, and time\n pressed on with the unavoidable question of survival. The\n doctors again said it did not look promising. They suggested\n to my parents to pick a name for me, therefore I was named\n after the nurse-Arlene, and the pilot-Frances, who were both\n so courageous during my birth. I was hooked up to oxygen and\n heart machines, and there were so many IV's in my tiny arm,\n that at fourteen inches long, two and half pounds, you could\n barely see me under all that equipment. When my mom entered\n the intensive care unit I was in, my heart monitor became\n extremely active, perhaps because I could feel her presence.\n It was then that my mom knew I would be okay.\n After two months in an incubator, and weighing in at five\n pounds, I went home to a family that was anxiously waiting my\n arrival. My mom endured three more years of chemotherapy\n treatment. To this day, there is not a single trace of cancer\n in her body. Despite all of the odds and even when it looked\n like it couldn't get any worse, my mom and I broke medical\n history. We are alive, and we did it together.\n\n[[Page E1938]]\n\n And today, because my mom chose life, I am me. My mom was\n given practically no chance, but she still underwent painful\n experiences, emotionally and physically, to give me life. I\n am who I am today, because of her. She had to make a choice.\n And she chose me!\n Because of the enormous obstacles overcome in my struggle,\n many people have deemed my birth to be a miracle. However, I\n have learned that life itself, is truly the miracle.\n Sometimes I forget how precious life is and we all tend to\n overlook the magic of every day. But then I remember. I\n remember that there are children not as fortunate as I am. I\n remember the dream that lies in every moment, and the\n expectation born in every thought. I remember that I am me.\n But most importantly, I remember the day I learned to fully\n appreciate the value of life. It was the day when my mom told\n me that the result of her choice had turned out to be\n priceless!\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1937", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE ITALIAN TRIBUNE COLUMBUS DAY PARADE", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1937", "E1937", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1937", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1937]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE ITALIAN TRIBUNE COLUMBUS DAY PARADE\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 26th\nAnnual Columbus Day Celebration and Parade in Newark, NJ, sponsored by\nthe Italian Tribune.\n As we all know, Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean in\nsearch of a New World. Shunned by skeptics and ridiculed by less\nadventurous souls, Columbus embarked on his trek armed with little more\nthan a vision of the future and an irrefutable desire for success.\n Christopher Columbus was born to a family of weavers and merchants in\nthe Genoa Republic of northern Italy. He soon became a man of the world\nas he traveled through Spain and Portugal. Throughout his travels,\nColumbus became fascinated with the lore of the Orient. He soon became\nconsumed with the idea of discovering a new quicker way to the shores\nof Asia. He believed that way was toward the oceans of the west.\n On September 6, 1492, Columbus set sail from Palos in search of a\nmore direct route to Asia, but only God knew his journey would bring\neven more wondrous discoveries. Two minutes after midnight on October\n12, 1492, the screams of ``Land! Land!'' broke the silence of the\nnight. As the Pinta, sailing ahead of the other ships, approached the\nsandy white beach, the crew raised the flag to its highest mast and\nfired a cannon to alert the other ships of the discovery.\n While Columbus originally thought he had found a more direct route to\nAsia, he soon realized that he made a more remarkable discovery--a New\nWorld.\n Mr. Speaker, over the last 26 years, this parade has been a\ncornerstone of the Italian-American and Newark community. Similar to\nthe way Columbus breached the gap between the Old and the New Worlds,\nthe parade brings together members of Newark's diverse population in a\ncelebration of Christopher Columbus. This parade, in the spirit of\nChristopher Columbus, shows how the Newark community can overcome\ncultural differences to gather and celebrate with each other.\n Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Italian Tribune, and thank\nthem for their continued support of this important community event.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1938-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "COMMENDING THE SAVE THE DUNES COUNCIL", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "COMMENDING", "E1938", "E1938", "[{\"name\": \"Peter J. Visclosky\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1938", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1938]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n COMMENDING THE SAVE THE DUNES COUNCIL\n\n ______\n\n HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY\n\n of indiana\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to commend the Save the\nDunes Council, and its executive director, Tom Anderson, as they\ncelebrate their 44th anniversary. The Save the Dunes Council is\nprimarily responsible for the creation of the Indiana Dunes National\nLakeshore, which celebrates its 30th anniversary this year.\n The Save the Dunes Council was formed to establish a dunes national\npark. Its main goal was to fight off plans of powerful political and\neconomic interests to industrialize the entire Hoosier shoreline on\nLake Michigan. In 1952, Dorothy Buell, a citizen of Ogden Dunes,\ninvited two dozen area women to a meeting in her house on the first day\nof the summer. This fledgling group was called the Save the Dunes\nCouncil. Their main focus was to raise money to buy the 5 miles of\nbeach and dunes generally located between the towns of Dune Acres on\nthe east and Ogden Dunes on the west. These women did succeed in\npurchasing a piece of the unprotected land at a 1953 Port County tax\nsale, which now stands as Cowles Bog.\n From these early beginnings, the council, which included Herb and\nCharlotte Read, and Illinois Senator Paul Douglas, traveled to\nWashington, DC, to fight plans to industrialize the area. As a result,\non November 5, 1966, the first Indiana Dunes bill was enacted to create\nthe 5,800-acre Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Since 1983, Dale B.\nEnquist has been superintendent of the Indiana Dunes National\nLakeshore. This year, Mr. Enquist received the Department of the\nInterior's highest honor, the Meritorious Service Award.\n The Council fought corporate interests and the entire Indiana\nlegislative and congressional delegations in the days before the\nNational Environmental Policy Act and open meetings law. While two\nsteel plants and a deep water port on Lake Michigan now sit in the\nheart of the dunes, 14,000 acres of Indiana's dunes are forever\nprotected as a State and national parkland.\n The Save the Dunes Council developed tactics and strategies that were\nnever used before. It stood up to corporate America and won the battle.\nThe Save the Dunes Council has preserved one of the country's most\nbeautiful and precious assets to ever exist. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and\nmy other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending the Save the\nDunes Council, as well as the hope it embodies in its continuing effort\nto preserve our environment.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1938-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO MR. J. GENE CHAMBERS", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1938", "E1938", "[{\"name\": \"David E. Bonior\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1938", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1938]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO MR. J. GENE CHAMBERS\n\n ______\n\n HON. DAVID E. BONIOR\n\n of michigan\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. J. Gene\nChambers for being honored with scouting's Distinguished Citizen award\nby the Clinton Valley Council, Boy Scouts of America. The award will be\npresented to Mr. Chambers on October 16, 1996 in Clinton Township,\nMichigan.\n J. Gene Chambers began his career in the newspaper industry as a\nsales representative and was promoted through the ranks to become the\nbusiness manager of a local paper. In 1982 , he became publisher of the\nMacomb Daily and was promoted to executive vice president and CEO of\nSouth Eastern Michigan Newspapers. Mr. Chambers has been credited with\nrescuing the Macomb Daily and its affiliate papers from financial\nfailure.\n The list of community services that Mr. Chambers is involved with is\nextensive. He annually supports the Wertz Warriors Snowmobile Endurance\nRide which benefits the winter Special Olympics and the Macomb County\nChild Advocacy Center, and was a past board member of the Macomb County\nCrippled Children's Association. In 1993 he was honored as ``Business\nCitizen of the Year'' by the Mount Clemens Business Association for his\nrole in fostering community development.\n Taking an active role in one's community is a responsibility we all\nshare, but few fulfill. Mr. Chambers' time, talents, and energy are\nappreciated by all of us. I thank him for his efforts and commend him\nfor his good work. I applaud the Boy Scouts of Clinton Valley Council\nfor recognizing Mr. Chambers. He has provided outstanding leadership to\nour community and I know he is proud to be honored by the Scouts.\n On behalf of the Boy Scouts of America, I urge my colleagues to join\nme in saluting J. Gene Chambers.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1938-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO FRED LANG", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1938", "E1938", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1938", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1938]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO FRED LANG\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Fred Lang, for\ndisplaying outstanding efforts on behalf of young adults in his\ncommunity.\n Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lang will be honored at the Allied Health Industry\nfor the Benefit of the Exploring Division of Passaic Valley Council,\nBoy Scouts of America. This branch of the Boy Scouts specializes in\ncareer development, citizenship training, social activities, service\nprojects, and outdoor and fitness activities.\n Fred Lang is also extremely active in other areas of our community,\nMr. Speaker. Mr. Lang serves as a member of the governing boards of the\nGreater Paterson Chamber of Commerce, Jewish Family Services of\nNorthern New Jersey and Paterson Education Fund, as well as an\nexecutive board member of the Passaic Valley Council of Boy Scouts.\n Mr. Speaker; as we all know, educating and preparing the youth of\nthis country is a great responsibility. That is why I rise today and\ncommend Frederick Lang for his efforts. His commitment to our young\nAmericans is an investment in our country's future.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1938-5", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3005, NATIONAL SECURITIES MARKETS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1938", "E1939", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3005\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3005\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1938", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1938-E1939]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nCONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3005, NATIONAL SECURITIES MARKETS IMPROVEMENT\n ACT OF 1996\n\n ______\n\n HON. JOHN D. DINGELL\n\n of michigan\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. DINGELL, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the passage of H.R.\n3005, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, I offer\nthe following extension of my remarks to clarify the congressional\nintent underlying two key components of the legislation.\n\n SEC Exemptive Authority and Fraud\n\n The House bill and Senate amendment contained substantially\n identical provisions granting the Securities and Exchange\n Commission [SEC] general exemptive authority under both the\n Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of\n 1934. See H. Rept. 104-622 at 38; S. Rept. 104-293 at 28. The\n conference agreement adopted those provisions.\n By the express terms of the exemption provisions, any\n exemption must be necessary or appropriate in the public\n interest and consistent with the protection of investors.\n In that regard, Congress intends the public interest test\n to include the national public interests noted in the\n underlying statutes, the prevention of fraud and the\n preservation\n\n[[Page E1939]]\n\n of the financial integrity of the markets, as well as the\n promotion of responsible financial innovation and fair\n competition. Clearly exemptions from the antifraud provisions\n would not be in the public interest nor consistent with the\n protection of investors. This is consistent with the\n explanation that was before this body when it passed H.R.\n 3005 (see Congressional Record, June 18, 1996 at H6447): `` *\n * * this bill does not grant the SEC the authority to grant\n exemptions from the antifraud provisions of either act. In\n determining the public interest, Congress has expressed the\n public interest through the express provisions of law that it\n has enacted. The SEC may not administratively repeal these\n provisions by use of the new exemptive authority.''\n\n Qualified Purchaser Exception\n\n The Investment Company Act of 1940 (Investment Company Act)\n establishes a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for\n investment companies. Regulation of investment companies is\n designed to: prevent insiders from managing the companies to\n their benefit and to the detriment of public investors;\n prevent the issuance of securities having inequitable or\n discriminatory provisions; prevent the management of\n investment companies by irresponsible persons; prevent the\n use of unsound or misleading methods of computing earnings\n and asset value; prevent changes in the character of\n investment companies without the consent of investors; ensure\n the disclosure of full and accurate information about the\n companies and their sponsors. To accomplish these ends, the\n Investment Company Act requires the safekeeping and proper\n valuation of fund assets, restricts greatly transactions with\n affiliates, limits leveraging, and imposes governance\n requirements as a check on fund management.\n Congress has been reluctant to exempt pooled investment\n vehicles from the Investment Company Act unless sufficient\n alternative protections have been established. Thus, Congress\n has acted cautiously in enacting any new exemptions,\n appreciating the perils to the public investor, including\n sophisticated investors, and the American capital markets\n that can arise from the operation of pooled investment\n vehicles outside the Investment Company Act. The following\n examples are part of the record: Last year, an investment\n fund, Foundation for New Era Philanthropy, collapsed after\n reportedly running a ``Ponzi scheme'' that left its\n investors, including at least 180 nonprofit organizations,\n with an estimated $200 million in losses.\n The collapse of the Orange County investment fund last\n year, reportedly due to overleveraging, portfolio\n illiquidity, and mispricing of assets, harmed many\n ``sophisticated'' investors, including more than 180 local\n governmental bodies that had invested in the pool.\n Last year, David Askin, a failed hedge fund manager,\n settled administrative proceedings in which the SEC charged\n him with fraudulent conduct in the collapse of his $600\n million hedge funds. It was reported that the collapse caused\n serious harm to at least one large personal estate, a pension\n fund, major state universities, and large insurance and\n brokerage houses.\n In 1992, Steven Wymer pleaded guilty to nine felony counts\n for defrauding his clients, including a state investment pool\n in which 88 governmental units reportedly had invested.\n Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act currently\n exempts from regulation any pooled investment vehicle with up\n to one hundred investors that has not made and does not\n propose to make a public offering. The conference agreement\n would create a new section 3(c)(7) exemption from the\n Investment Company Act for pooled investment vehicles that\n sell their securities only to ``qualified purchasers''\n defined as persons with at least $5 million in investments\n and institutional investors with at least $25 million in\n investments. The term ``investments'' must be defined by the\n SEC.\n The conferees believed that invester protections could be\n maintained under more liberal thresholds than the House\n bill's $10 million in ``securities'' for natural persons and\n $100 million in securities for institutional investors.\n However, for investor protection reasons, the conferees\n rejected the Senate amendment's provisions that would have\n allowed the SEC by rule to specify additional qualified\n purchasers who did not meet the statutorily defined standards\n of financial sophistication but nonetheless would be taken\n outside the protections of the Investment Company Act.\n Given this record and the purposes of the Investment\n Company Act, it is not the intention of Congress that the SEC\n would use its authority under section 6(c) of the Act to\n reduce the thresholds or to ease the statutorily-established\n conditions to this exemption.\n Moreover, the grandfather provision in section 3(c)(7) was\n intended to allow existing section 3(c)(1) pools to open\n themselves up to qualified purchasers without having to\n terminate longstanding relationships with investors that are\n not qualified purchasers. The grandfather provision was not\n intended to allow sponsors to nominally ``convert'' that pool\n to a section 3(c)(7) pool in order to raise additional funds\n through another section 3(c)(1) pool without regard to\n section 3(c)(1)'s 100 person limitation. In the absence of\n new, bona fide qualified purchaser investors in the\n ``grandfathered'' section 3(c)(1) pool, this would be an\n abuse of the grandfather provision that Congress did not\n intend. The grandfather provision also was not intended to\n override existing interpretative positions concerning the\n circumstances under which two or more related section 3(c)(1)\n pools would be integrated for purposes of determining whether\n section 3(c)(1)'s requirement that the voting securities of a\n section 3(c)(1) company be owned by no more than 100 persons.\n Such an abusive practice would not be protected by the ``non-\n integration'' provision of new section 3(c)(7)(E) which\n explicitly provides that that provision does not address the\n question of whether a person is a bona fide qualified\n purchaser.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1938", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO SAINTS PETER AND PAUL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH ON ITS 95TH ANNIVERSARY", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1938", "E1938", "[{\"name\": \"William O. Lipinski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1938", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1938]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO SAINTS PETER AND PAUL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH ON ITS\n 95TH ANNIVERSARY\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI\n\n of illinois\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an\noutstanding church in my congressional district celebrating 95 years of\nservice to its community this year.\n Founded just after the turn of the century, Saints Peter and Paul\nEvangelical Lutheran Church in Riverside, IL, has served the spiritual\nneeds of its congregation and the community at large since then.\n As we know, churches are the backbone of any community and Saints\nPeter and Paul has been one of the more important supporting structures\nof Riverside for more than nine decades.\n Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Saints Peter and Paul on its 95th\nanniversary and wish the church many more years of service to its\ncongregation and community.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1939", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SALUTING THE REOPENING OF THE SACRAMENTO MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1939", "E1939", "[{\"name\": \"Richard W. Pombo\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1939", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1939]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SALUTING THE REOPENING OF THE SACRAMENTO MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM\n\n ______\n\n HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI\n\n HON. VIC FAZIO\n\n HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE\n\n HON. RICHARD W. POMBO\n\n of california\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MATSUI, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, we rise\ntoday to pay tribute to all parties responsible for the grand reopening\nof the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium.\n Originally opened in 1927, this landmark building served for almost\n60 years as a multi-purpose venue for all manner of public gatherings,\na forerunner of our modern community convention center. Besides hosting\neverything from operas, rock concerts, and religious revivals to\ncircuses, conventions, and boxing matches, it is perhaps best\nremembered as the primary location for generations of school\ngraduations.\n In 1986, the city was forced to close the building due to code\nviolations and structural hazards. Sorely missed, the voters approved\nan initiative in 1992 to restore and reopen the auditorium in its\noriginal, multi-purpose configuration.\n Phase I of the renovation began in November of 1994. The project was\nunique in that rather than commission a set of architectural plans to\nbe put out to bid, the city first established a minimum scope of work\nand a maximum project budget. Then a list of secondary renovation\npriorities was developed, with instructions to address as many of these\nitems as possible within the budget. Finally, the city asked\nengineering, design and construction firms to form partnerships to bid\non the job, and instructed the winning team to work in tandem to design\nand build the project. This design/build concept gave them flexibility,\nwhich was essential because the cost of some of the work, such as\nseismic retrofitting, would vary depending on the methods used. Money\nsaved on essential renovations has been applied to secondary\npriorities.\n The result is extraordinary. In addition to the esthetic restoration\nof the building, alterations have been made to meet modern standards of\nearthquake and fire safety, and new electrical, mechanical, and\nenvironmental systems were installed. Accessibility was enhanced by\nadding ramps at the front and side entrances, space for wheelchairs in\nseating areas throughout the main level, new signage, and accessible\nrestrooms. Today, the building looks better than ever and is more safe\nand functional than ever. Perhaps most importantly, the project has\nbeen completed within its budget of $10.8 million.\n For many, the auditorium represents a priceless link with the city's\npast and the history of its cultural development. Newly refurbished, it\nis one of Sacramento's's most beloved historical landmarks, especially\namong our community of veterans.\n Sacramento Memorial Auditorium is dedicated to the memory of all\nSacramento County residents who give their lives in service to the\nUnited States in any of America's wars, past or future. The names of\nthese men and women are inscribed in a permanent honor roll displayed\nwithin the building, a reminder of the terrible cost of war and a\ntribute to the price and patriotism of Sacramento residents. As part of\nthe restoration, a new and expanded honor roll has been added, listing\nour fallen heroes and heroines from the Spanish-American War through\nthe Persian Gulf War.\n Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in honoring the men and\nwomen who worked to make this project such and overwhelming success. We\nare proud to have such a beautiful and utilitarian monument to our\ncountry's fallen heroes and look forward to many years of continued use\nand enjoyment.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1940-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO BRIG. GEN. ALLAN W. NESS", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1940", "E1940", "[{\"name\": \"David E. Bonior\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1940", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1940]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO BRIG. GEN. ALLAN W. NESS\n\n ______\n\n HON. DAVID E. BONIOR\n\n of michigan\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brig. Gen.\nAllan W. Ness. On November 23, 1996, he will be honored on the occasion\nof his retirement as commander of Selfridge Air National Guard Base,\nMI.\n Brigadier General Ness' distinguished career includes a yearlong tour\nin Tuy Hoa, Republic of Vietnam where he flew 247 combat missions. In\n1988, he was selected to attend the NATO Defense College in Rome and\nshortly thereafter became deputy commander for operations of the 127th\nTactical Fighter Wing. The promotion to brigadier general was effective\nas of September 1994.\n General Ness has served as commander of the 127th Wing and Selfridge\nAir National Guard Base for 3 years. He is responsible for successfully\nleading Selfridge through some of its greatest challenges since the\nopening of the base. General Ness implemented the conversion and\nconsolidation of the 191st Fighter Group and 127th Fighter Wing which\noccurred because of significant downsizing of the units at Selfridge.\nHe diligently fought an Army recommendation to pull out of the base and\nmaintained a high state of readiness throughout the process.\n Through General Ness' leadership, a nationally recognized equal\nopportunity diversity training program was implemented. Selfridge has\nled the State and Nation in developing innovative programs to monitor,\nmentor, and motivate their members to appreciate diversity.\n I commend him for his years of service to the Selfridge Air National\nGuard Base and the citizens of our great country. I urge my colleagues\nto join me in showing appreciation for a job well done by offering a\nfinal salute on the event of his retirement.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1940-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO FRANK CORRADI", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1940", "E1941", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1940", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1940-E1941]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO FRANK CORRADI\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Frank Corradi\nof Cedar Grove for his outstanding public service record. Mr. Corradi\nis currently serving in the capacity of councilman/deputy mayor for the\ncity of Cedar Grove in the Eighth Congressional District.\n Mr. Corradi's current public office is not his first involvement with\nhis community. He participated on the church level through his position\nas parish finance council member, which he held from 1986 until 1990.\nIn 1992, Mr. Corradi served on the Zoning Board of Adjustment in Cedar\nGrove, and in 1994, he held a seat on the Planning Board. Mr. Speaker,\nthese positions reflect Mr. Corradi's qualities of responsibility,\nfiscal integrity, and dedication, which no doubt played a large role in\nhis 1994 election to councilman/deputy mayor.\n Over the past 2 years, Mr. Corradi has accomplished a number of\nprojects to better the lives of the people of Cedar Grove. He worked to\nincrease the awareness of the residents\n\n[[Page E1941]]\n\nwith regard to the need for an expanded recycling program. Mr. Corradi\nsponsored legislation to eliminate cigarette machines in all nonliquor\nserving establishments. He also helped to more thoroughly integrate the\nneeds of the business community by creating committees to provide them\nwith support.\n Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of Mr. Corradi's achievements. The\npeople of Cedar Grove have benefited greatly from his constructive and\nfiscally responsible actions. I encourage Mr. Corradi to continue his\nnoteworthy agenda. He is a truly respectable public servant who should\nserve as an example to others.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1940", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE LATE THEODORE R. (TEDD) McCANN", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1940", "E1940", "[{\"name\": \"Ralph Regula\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1940", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1940]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[[Page E1940]]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE LATE THEODORE R. (TEDD) McCANN\n\n ______\n\n HON. RALPH REGULA\n\n of ohio\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 1996, a former employee of\nthe National Park Service, Theodore R. (Tedd) McCann passed away.\nTedd's passing is mourned by his many friends and family, but his\nlegacy lives on and is reflected in many of our Nation's National Parks\nacross the country.\n Tedd was a park planner, but he was also a poet and an artist. His\npark plans were touched with his gift of words and his vision. One park\nthat Tedd helped plan and that Congress subsequently established in\n1974, is the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area in northeast\nOhio. He began studying the area in 1971. When Tedd was first given the\nassignment, he was skeptical. The Cuyahoga River was, after all, the\nriver that caught fire in 1969 and was an icon for environmental\npollution. Yet later, in Tedd's report back to Interior Secretary\nRogers C.B. Morton, he called it ``a green shrouded miracle.'' He saw\nin the Cuyahoga Valley the potential of being what it has become today,\na great urban national park that now serves over 3 million people a\nyear who hike its trails and marvel at its scenery and enjoy its rich\nhistory.\n Tedd also had dreams for a much larger area, one that would extend\nfurther down the Ohio & Erie Canal and serve even more people\nthroughout the region. But good things often need to start with smaller\nsteps and he recognized that fact. Fortunately, at the end of the 104th\nCongress we were able to take that next big step, and establish the\nOhio & Erie Canal Heritage Corridor which encompasses the Cuyahoga\nValley National Recreation Area but extends north and south from\nCleveland to Zoar Ohio and will truly create a ribbon of wilderness in\nurbanized northeast Ohio. The heritage corridor is a relatively new\nconcept, which allows for more flexibility in how the area is managed\nand provides for increased local participation. It is a concept which I\nbelieve Tedd would be proud of and the Ohio and Erie Canal Heritage\nArea will further enhance the ``green-shrouded miracle'' he so aptly\ndescribed more than 2 decades ago.\n But Tedd's legacy extends beyond northeast Ohio as he had a hand in\nmany other parks across the country. Because of that and especially for\nthe legacy he left us in Ohio I want to share some of the details of\nhis life.\n Tedd was born on May 29, 1929, in Jeannette, PA to Lawrence Vernon\nMcCann and Lois Mumma McCann. His family later moved to Pontiac, MI. At\nthe age of 18, Tedd caught a train and went to Chicago to study art. He\njoined the Air force during the Korean War and was stationed at Langley\nAir Force Base in Hampton, VA. He later attended the Corcoran Art\nSchool in Washington, D.C. and received a degree in art history and\npainting from George Washington University. He was a graphics designer\nfor the Bureau of Reclamation from 1957 to 1960, and later headed his\nown house restoration business.\n In 1963, Tedd joined the National Park Service as art director. He\nhelped put together a graphics and cartography unit in the publications\noffice; it received a gold medal from the First Federal Design Assembly\nas the best in government. Many of the maps and brochures he designed\nare still in use. In 1967 Park Service Director George Hartzog set up\nthe Office of Urban Affairs, and Tedd worked on initial plans for the\nthen-proposed Wolf Trap Park, VA; Georgetown Waterfront and Fort\nLincoln, Washington, DC; Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore; Delaware\nWater Gap National Recreation Area; and Jefferson National Expansion\nMemorial, St. Louis, MO.\n In 1968 in the wake of the riots in Washington, DC, he and designer\nRussell Wright conceived of and developed the ``Summer in the Parks''\nprogram, which provided cultural and recreation activities in parks\nthroughout the region and became the model for similar programs\nthroughout the Nation.\n Tedd's park planning days began in 1969, when he served on the\nplanning team that came up with the plan and legislation to establish\nthe Gateway National Recreation Area in New York/New Jersey. He\nsubsequently served as head of planning for other new urban national\nparks, including the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San\nFrancisco and of course, the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area\nbetween Akron and Cleveland, OH. He also did the early studies of the\nLowell National Historic Park, MA; Chattahoochee River National\nRecreation Area, Atlanta; Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation\nArea, near Los Angeles; and Ellis Island and Statue of Liberty, NY. He\nconducted a study of President Roosevelt's summer home in Warm Springs,\nGA and a study of the Rockefeller estate in Pocantico Hills, NY. He\nalso led a study of potential African-American historic sites\nthroughout the country, several of which including the Maggie Walker\nhome in Richmond, VA, Congress subsequently included in the National\nPark System. As his last project before retiring in 1984, he served on\nthe management planning team for the Women's Rights National Historical\nPark, Seneca Falls, NY.\n Tedd lived with his wife Loretta Neumann in Washington, DC. Tedd was\none of the founders of Plan Takoma, a neighborhood organization for\nwhich he helped develop a comprehensive plan for the area surrounding\nthe proposed Metrorail station. He was also active in Neighbors Inc. He\nwas one of the founders in the late 1970s of the Takoma Park Folk\nFestival, and for many years was a member of its coordinating\ncommittee. He was for many years treasurer of the Committee of 100 on\nthe Federal City and Takoma Park Horticultural Club.\n Tedd's first marriage was to Marilyn Hudson, with whom he had three\nchildren: Christopher, Carol Lynn, and Clair (Behrens). He has one\ngrandson, Charles Behrens. He also has a sister, Patricia (Rososky),\nand brother, Lawrence.\n Just over a week ago, I participated in a ceremony to mark the\nreopening and completion of the renovation of the historic ``Boston\nStore'' in the Cuyahoga Valley. It was a great day and all of us who\nwere present including John Seiberling, the author of the legislation\ncreating the Cuyahoga Valley noted how bi-partisan the creation and\ncontinued operation of the park has been. The ``green-shrouded\nmiracle'' Tedd knew would one day be a park has brought much joy to\nmillions in our region of the country and his vision has left an\nindelible mark throughout the country.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1941", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "H.R. 3752, THE AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1941", "E1942", "[{\"name\": \"Don Young\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3752\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3752\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3753\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1941", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1941-E1942]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n H.R. 3752, THE AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT\n\n ______\n\n speech of\n\n HON. DON YOUNG\n\n of alaska\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Friday, October 4, 1996\n\n Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, in a rollcall on September 26,\n1996, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996, which would\nreestablish the Congress as the ultimate decisionmaker in managing\npublic lands and maintain sovereign control of lands in the United\nStates, failed--by a 246 to 178 vote--to receive the two-thirds\nmajority necessary to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The bill\nsimply requires congressional approval of international land\ndesignations in the United States, primarily UNESCO World Heritage\nSites and Biosphere Reserves. These designations, as presently handled,\nare an open invitation to the international community to interfere in\nU.S. domestic land-use decisions.\n I am amazed that a single Member of Congress would oppose legislation\nrequiring congressional oversight of international land designations\nwithin the borders of the United States. What is unreasonable about\nCongress insisting that no land be designated for inclusion in\ninternational land use programs without the clear and direct approval\nof Congress? What is unreasonable about having local citizens and\npublic officials participate in decisions on designating land near\ntheir homes for inclusion in an international land program?\n Many, many Americans from all sections of our country have called my\noffice to say that they are concerned about the lack of congressional\noversight over UNESCO international land designations in the United\nStates and to express their support for H.R. 3752. I want to say to\nthem that this fight has not ended. I plan to introduce this bill again\nin the 105th Congress.\n I would like to include the following recent articles about the\ndebate over H.R. 3752. I urge my colleagues to read these commentaries.\n\n Congress Fails To Veto U.N. Role in National Parks\n\n (By Cliff Kincaid)\n\n In a sign of mounting anti-United Nations sentiment, Rep.\n Don Young (R-Alaska) got about 60% of House members--246 to\n 178 (see rollcall next week)--to vote in favor of his\n ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' (H.R. 3753) on\n September 26, but because the bill didn't get the two-thirds\n approval needed under suspension of the rules procedures, it\n ultimately failed. Thirty-three Democrats voted for the\n popular piece of legislation, 15 Republicans voted against\n it.\n The bill would have required congressional approval before\n federal officials seek special U.N. status for U.S. parks and\n public lands. It was brought to the House floor just two\n weeks after Rep. Young had convened an informative September\n 12 hearing of his House Resources. Committee to highlight how\n the United Nations has been brought in to ``protect''\n literally tens of millions of acres of federal land. The\n hearing focused on how President Clinton complied with a U.N.\n recommendation to kill a gold mine project outside\n Yellowstone National Park.\n Citizens and local officials from Montana, New Mexico,\n Wyoming, Colorado and even New York testified that the United\n Nations has been involved in labeling public lands in their\n communities as World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves\n without their knowledge or consent. They said the U.N.\n involvement including proposals for ``buffer zones'' around\n these areas, threatens private property rights, property\n values and economic development.\n In the United States there are now 20 World Heritage Sites,\n designated under the terms of a 1972 treaty, and 47 Biosphere\n Reserves, designated under a 1970 U.N.-sponsored ``Man and\n the Biosphere'' program that has been implemented without the\n benefit of a treaty. The programs are run out of the U.N\n Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in\n Paris.\n According to Rep. Young, these U.N.-designated areas\n comprise more than 51 million acres--68% of all National\n Parks, Preserves and Monuments, including the Statute of\n Liberty and Independence Hall.\n Unwilling to take the side of the United Nations against\n Congress, not one major environmentalist group accepted an\n invitation to testify and no Democrats on the committee\n showed up at the hearing to oppose the bill. The Clinton\n Administration did, however, send Assistant Interior\n Secretary George Frampton to testify against the Young bill.\n Frampton was clearly perturbed by Young's effort to promote\n his legislation by asking his congressional colleagues, ``Is\n Boutros Boutros-Ghali zoning land in your district?''\n Ironically, Frampton's own dealings with the United Nations\n in the Yellowstone matter were a major factor in prompting\n the hearings and the proposed legislation.\n\n clinton's yellowstone deal\n\n Circumventing the lawful process of completing an\n Environmental Impact Statement to determine what threat, if\n any, was posed by a proposed gold mine, Frampton last year\n invited a foreign U.N. delegation to make a brief visit to\n Yellowstone, which is both a World Heritage Site and a\n Biosphere Reserve, to call for a ``buffer zone'' around the\n park and to declare it ``in danger'' from the mining project.\n The leader of the delegation was a German, Bernd Von Droste,\n who has called for global energy taxes to enable the United\n Nations to better ``protect'' these areas.\n After the U.N intervention, the mining company, Crown Butte\n Mines Inc., agreed to White House demands to cancel the\n project in return for a vague presidential promise of some\n federal land somewhere else. ``This President believed the\n U.N. has more value than the Congress,'' Rep. Young angrily\n declared, vowing to push his sovereignty bill and subject\n Clinton's Yellowstone deal to congressional scrutiny.\n But the administration's Frampton dismissed these concerns.\n ``People are nervous the U.N. is coming,'' he sniffed. He\n insisted the U.N. designations simply promote environmental\n cooperation and actually serve to attract tourists. When\n told, however, that the United Nations had complained that\n Yellowstone was too crowded by tourists, he just replied, ``I\n was not aware of that.'' Indeed, environmental groups not\n only wanted the gold mine stopped, but have suggested greatly\n restricting tourism within the park.\n Myron Ebell of Frontiers of Freedom, a group started by\n former Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R.-Wyo.), said Frampton was part\n of a ``cabal'' of federal agencies and environmental groups\n that regard the United Nations as a `'weapon'' in their\n campaign to deindustrialize America. Paul C. Jones, executive\n director of the Colorado-based Minerals Exploration\n Coalition, said the involvement of the United Nations in\n Yellowstone was ``unprecedented'' and amounted to an\n international ``land grab.'' The House support for the Young\n legislation is only one indication that opposition is\n building.\n Rep. Tim Hutchinson (R.-Ark.) testified that citizens in\n his own state, including a group called ``Take Back\n Arkansas,'' had thwarted the designation of the Ozark\n National Forest as a Biosphere Reserve because they didn't\n want their ``prized national treasures'' subjected to\n international agreements that might conflict with U.S. law.\n In a case involving Mount Mitchell State Park in North\n Carolina, citizen action forced park authorities to actually\n take the words ``United Nations'' off a wooden sign leading\n into the park.\n For her part, Nina Sibal of UNESCO testified that passage\n of Young's legislation was ``a sovereign decision'' of the\n United States. Her French UNESCO associate, Pierre Lasserre,\n however, did venture the opinion that the name of the ``Man\n and the Biosphere'' program should be changed because it\n sounds ``sexist.''\n\n U.N.-Sponsored Aliens Land in Yellowstone\n\n (By Gayle M.B. Hanson)\n\n The Clinton administration allowed an obscure treaty to\n establish U.N. authority over Yellowstone National Park, the\n Statue of Liberty and other American sites. House Democrats\n backed the power grab.\n Okay, so maybe there were only a handful of individuals\n involved, and maybe they didn't actually arrive in the dead\n of night protected by whirring black helicopters and hell-\n bent on clandestine maneuvers. But the fact that four members\n of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural\n Organization's, or UNESCO's, World Heritage Committee\n traveled from halfway around the globe to the Idaho-Montana-\n Wyoming border area in summer 1995 to investigate a\n ``dangerous'' situation unfolding at Yellowstone National\n Park has some people still scratching their heads in\n disbelief.\n The aforementioned (dare we say it?) aliens were invited to\n poke around on their fact-finding mission at Yellowstone by\n Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and\n Parks George Frampton Jr. Frampton, at the behest of the U.S.\n Park Service and a cavalcade of environmental groups\n including the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and\n the Wilderness Society, an organization Frampton once led,\n officially sought the intervention of UNESCO's World Heritage\n Committee to remedy what they called ``extremely serious\n threats'' by a proposed gold mine near the park.\n The initial correspondence from the environmental groups to\n the World Heritage Centre in March 1995 requested that\n Yellowstone be put on the List of the World Heritage in\n Danger due to the mine that was planned on its perimeter. The\n World Heritage Centre followed up with a letter to Frampton\n in June\n\n[[Page E1942]]\n\n requesting a detailed analysis of the site to determine\n whether it should be included for consideration as endangered\n at their July meeting in Paris. On June 27, Frampton\n responded on behalf of the Clinton administration in a\n lengthy letter in which he pleaded for intervention by the\n U.N. group and urged that international investigators\n immediately be sent to Yellowstone.\n ``[Interior] Secretary Babbit and I are informed of the\n nongovernmental conservation group concerns as transmitted to\n the Centre,'' Frampton wrote to Bernd von Droste, the World\n Heritage Centre director. ``We believe that a potential\n danger to the values of the park and surrounding waters and\n fisheries exists and the Committee should be informed that\n the property as inscribed in the World Heritage List is in\n danger.''\n In short, invoking a madcap treaty, the Clinton\n administration accepted U.N. sovereignty in these matters and\n called upon a U.N. agency to save Yellowstone. Several months\n later four individuals from the Centre flew to the rescue.\n ``I was there the entire time they visited,'' says Paul C.\n Jones, executive director of the Minerals Exploration\n Coalition, a mining-advocacy group. ``We were in the midst of\n a very long, very serious, congressionally mandated process\n to produce an environmental-impact statement on the mine\n proposed for the park. We were strictly following the rules\n as spelled out by the National Environmental Protection Act.\n When suddenly, with the appearance of the U.N., what had been\n an ordinary process became a political debate. And it was\n apparent that these people had made up their minds before\n they even got there.''\n During their visit to the proposed site for New World Mine,\n north of Cooke City, Mont., the four visitors had the\n opportunity to interact with many of the more common local\n species including environmentalists, park-service\n representatives and mining-industry honchos. In fact, each\n member of the visiting U.N. team traveled in an overland\n vehicle (read Jeep) with their own locally supplied good-guy\n environmentalist and evil mine representative. This allowed\n for a continuing dialogue to be maintained wherein each side\n could bark loudly at the other.\n The visitors also took time out from their research to\n discuss the future of the park with the many reporters who\n had gathered from around the globe. Adul Wichiencharoen of\n Thailand, who heads the World Heritage Committee, went so far\n as to tell a reporter from Montana's Billings Gazette that\n the park might be improved by the addition of several million\n additional acres of land. ``Certainly the forest areas around\n Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem,'' he said. ``All of\n these lands must have protection so their integrity is not\n threatened.''\n The end result was that the visitors returned to the World\n Heritage Centre, presented their findings in Berlin that\n November and the world body voted to place Yellowstone on its\n lists of endangered sites. The resulting international bad\n press effectively derailed the permit process and in late\n August the mine owners agreed to a land swap with the U.S.\n government, ridding them of their parcel of $65 million worth\n of property in a location yet to be determined.\n Where was Yogi Bear when he was needed? It isn't certain.\n But the circus of events that took place in the mountains was\n enough to send House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young\n of Alaska to urge passage of the American Land Sovereignty\n Protection Act of 1996 faster than you could say Boutros\n Boutros-Ghali.\n Young's proposal simply provided that Congress be allowed\n to assert its authority over what American landmarks make the\n World Heritage List. The World Heritage List is a product of\n the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World\n Cultural and National Heritage, a treaty taking precedence at\n law over the U.S. Constitution. Since it was adopted in 1972\n (the United States was its initiator and first signatory),\n the convention has been used to project the authority of a\n U.N. agency over an ever-growing list of officially\n designated cultural and natural sites. Commemorative photos\n are taken. Plaques are installed at qualifying locations.\n National sovereignty is eroded.\n At present 496 cultural and natural sites throughout the\n world are included on the list. They cover a diverse\n compendium, including such buildings as Independence Hall,\n the Statue of Liberty and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and such\n areas of regional and national interest as the Florida\n Everglades and Mount Everest.\n ``Land designations under the World Heritage and Biosphere\n Reserve programs have been created with virtually no\n congressional over-sight and no congressional hearings. The\n public and local governments are rarely consulted,'' says\n Young.\n Instead, in the case of the World Heritage List, sites\n generally are recommended for this internationalization by\n the National Park Service. Twenty such sites are within the\n confines of the U.S. borders; two additional sites,\n Yellowstone and the Everglades, are on the list of endangered\n heritage sites. Hundreds of additional sites around the globe\n are pending inclusion on the list. If neither the first\n McDonald's nor Yankee Stadium has yet to be included, it\n could be an oversight.\n Certainly the UNESCO folks are looking to improve their\n holdings. ``An analysis of the World Heritage List has shown\n that the industrialized world, religious Christian movements,\n historical cities, historical periods and `elitist'\n architecture are over-represented,'' according to World\n Heritage Centre documents. Well, so much for getting\n McDonald's on the list.\n Now the World Heritage Centre is willing to admit that for\n the moment it is a dog that barks but has no bite. It can't\n yet force the United States to do anything about its national\n parks or turn over the Statue of Liberty. But these people\n are nothing if not ambitious. Although UNESCO admits that it\n has no enforcement teeth (which begs the question of why\n there should be such a list in the first place), the Clinton\n administration first strongly asserted its desire that\n Yellowstone be put on the endangered list and then opposed\n passage of Young's bill, which would have taken nomination of\n sites to the World Heritage List out from under the\n relatively opaque operations of the Interior Department and\n placed them in the hands of Congress.\n ``If Congress wishes to micromanage these international\n programs, it could assume that responsibility,'' claimed Rep.\n George Miller of California, the senior Democratic member of\n the House Resources Committee. ``However, it is very ironic\n that this Congress is willing to spend its waning days fixing\n programs that are not broken. . . .''\n Critics slap their heads, roll their eyes and wonder if a\n treaty really has ceded American sovereignty over the Statue\n of Liberty and Independence Hall. They note with suspicion\n the administration's loathing of the proposed Young bill,\n going so far as to promise a presidential veto had it passed.\n They ask why we have Clinton protecting a list that\n supposedly doesn't matter--from a bill that supposedly\n doesn't matter.\n Some who testified in favor of the bill argue strongly that\n congressional oversight is constitutional necessity. ``If\n these international programs are seen as harmless because\n they are merely symbolic, Congress is entitled to think\n competing concerns also deserve `symbolic' recognition,''\n testified Jeremy A. Rabkin, an expert in constitutional law\n from Cornell University. ``[The bill] seems to me a modest\n but useful statement that global enthusiasms should not be\n allowed to run roughshod over our traditional constitutional\n principles.''\n But if the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996\n didn't stand a chance this time around, and the bill, while\n it received a majority of votes, did not receive the two-\n thirds vote necessary for it to pass under the rules of\n suspension, it still is not a fight that's finished. Young\n has vowed to keep the pressure on when the 105th Congress\n convenes.\n ``While I'm pleased that a strong majority of the House\n supported this legislation, I'm amazed that a single member\n of Congress would oppose having congressional oversight of\n international land designations within the borders of the\n United States,'' Young says. Clinton administration claims of\n U.N. authority over Yellowstone and the Statue of Liberty are\n meanwhile continuing to give conservatives a bad case of\n dyspepsia.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1942", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3610, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1942", "E1943", "[{\"name\": \"Tom Davis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3610\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1942", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1942-E1943]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3610, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS\n ACT, 1997\n\n ______\n\n HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS\n\n of virginia\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Tuesday, October 22, 1996\n\n Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the provision in the\nfinal Conference Agreement to the FY 1997 Department of Defense (DOD)\nAppropriations Bill, which encourages the Department to pay particular\nattention to pediatric patients as it explores telemedicine initiatives\nthat would provide cost-effective, accessible, and high quality\nservices for DoD beneficiaries.\n The Department of Defense in the past decade, has experienced many of\nthe same challenges confronting the Nation's private health care\nsystem--increasing costs, uneven access to health care services, and\ndisparate benefit and cost-sharing packages for similarly-situated\ncategories of beneficiaries. As DoD responds to these challenges, there\nis a particular need to ensure that the transition to managed care for\npediatric patients within the Military Health Services System is\nhandled with a high level of professionalism and care.\n The requirements of a reformed health care delivery system and the\nemergence of new medical and information technologies have radically\nchanged the manner in which health care is provided and delivered to\npediatric patients. Therefore, it is critically important for the\nDepartment to develop a partnership with a pediatric hospital which has\nthe proven expertise and track record in the diagnosis and treatment of\nsick children.\n Children's National Medical Center (CNMC), located in the Nation's\ncapital, offers significant benefits to DoD and to countless citizens\nin Northern Virginia, Washington, DC, and Maryland. CNMC has had a\nlongstanding relationship with the Department of Defense through\ncollaboration with DoD facilities, and through the provision of patient\ncare services to a large number of military dependents and the children\nof DoD civilian employees. CNMC currently has affiliation agreements\nwith Walter\n\n[[Page E1943]]\n\nReed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Through\nthese relationships, CNMC serves as a major regional source of training\nfor military physicians, nurses, technologists, therapists, and other\nallied health professionals.\n In recent years, CNMC has worked closely with DoD to develop\npediatric quality assurance criteria for emergency medical care\nservices to acutely ill and injured children who are military\ndependents referred by area military medical treatment facilities. This\npilot study involved the development and application of screening\ncriteria designed to assess the process and outcome of pediatric\nemergency care for head trauma, seizures and respiratory distress due\nto upper airway construction. The criteria was applied to a sample of\nsix military treatment facilities in the United States. The findings\nfrom the study revealed specific aspects of pediatric emergency medical\ncare which would benefit from clinical and/or administrative\neducational programs.\n Given the specific expertise which Children's National Medical Center\nbrings to pediatric health care, its longstanding successful\nrelationship with DoD, the National Institutes of Health, and other\nFederal agencies in health policy and research matters, CNMC is\neminently qualified to work with DoD in establishing a state-of-the-art\ntelemedicine network to ensure that pediatric military dependents have\naccess to the most advanced standards of American health care.\n Telepediatrics demonstration of this nature will provide DoD with\notherwise inaccessible state-of-the-art pediatric medical advice and\nservices to providers and their patients. It will also provide the\nbroadest range of pediatric specialty services allowing for the phased\nintegration of target specialties (trauma, radiology, psychiatry), it\nwill develop broad or segmented demonstration of the utility of various\ntelemedicine technologies in the field of pediatric medicine across the\nrange of primary, chronic, and acute care services, and it will\ndemonstrate the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine technologies in\nenhancing the quality of services and access to pediatric populations\nin urban, suburban, rural, and regionally dispersed, as well as\ntransitional communities.\n Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the effort by the Department of\nDefense to explore telemedicine initiatives which will bring new\ninsights and services to the care of pediatric patients.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1943-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION--REFLECTIONS OF CHARLES GATI", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1943", "E1943", "[{\"name\": \"Tom Lantos\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1943", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1943]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION--REFLECTIONS OF\n CHARLES GATI\n\n ______\n\n HON. TOM LANTOS\n\n of california\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of October, we will\nmark the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the 1956 Hungarian\nRevolution. This is a particularly significant event because that\nuprising of the Hungarian people against communism and against the\nSoviet domination of the Hungarian nation was one of the most dramatic\nand critical events of the cold war era.\n As we reach the last days of October when the dramatic events\nunfolded 40 years ago, it is appropriate that we here in the United\nStates--and particularly that we as Members of Congress--remember the\nevents of 1956. It is most appropriate that we pay tribute to the brave\npeople of Hungary who rose up against Soviet tanks and the heavily\narmed Red Army in an effort to win their freedom and regain their\nnational independence.\n Mr. Speaker, one of the individuals who was a young man in Budapest\nat the time of those tumultuous events four decades ago was Dr. Charles\nGati, who was one of the hundreds of thousands of Hungarians who fled\ntheir country in the aftermath of that tragic revolution. We are\nfortunate, indeed, to have him here as an American today, one of our\nfinest scholars and analysts of Central and Eastern Europe.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1943-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO DR. MARCO BRUNO AND JOSEPH ALESSI", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1943", "E1944", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1943", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1943-E1944]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO DR. MARCO BRUNO AND JOSEPH ALESSI\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, as we approach October, National Italian-\nAmerican Heritage Month, being an Italian-American myself, I would like\nto commend two distinguished individuals from my congressional district\nfor their dedication to increasing the awareness of Italian-American\nheritage. These two gentlemen, Dr. Marco Bruno and Mr. Joseph Alessi,\nwere recently recognized by the Belleville Chapter of UNICO National\nfor their accomplishments.\n Dr. Bruno is extremely active in the Italian-American community. He\nis a founder and charter member of the Center for Italian and Italian-\nAmerican Culture, Inc. He has served as the center's vice president, a\nmember of the board of trustees, chairman of the membership committee,\nparticipant and chairman of several other cultural and fundraising\nactivities. Currently, Dr. Bruno is serving his third year as president\nof the executive board. He is a member of the National Italian American\nFoundation [NIAF]. Dr. Bruno has been a member of Cedar Grove UNICO for\nover 10 years and has served as chairman of the Heritage Committee. In\naddition, he has held the offices of vice president and president. In\n1992, Dr. Bruno was honored as the Cedar Grove UNICO Man of the Year.\nHis numerous activities with UNICO include various heritage programs,\ncoordinator of the Columbus Day Parade, Christmas Toy Drive, and\ndirector of Italian language classes in Cedar Grove. He is a member of\nthe UNICO Once Voice Committee and has assisted in the organization of\nItalian-American Heritage Day at Montclair State College, and the One\nVoice Seminar at Seton Hall University. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bruno\nhas most recently served as co-chairman of the A-T Children's Project\nFamily Day fundraiser.\n Mr. Speaker, the second notable Italian-American, Joseph Alessi\nserved as Essex County Condemnation Commissioner and an Arbitrator for\nthe Essex County Court Special Civil Part. He became a member of Cedar\nGrove UNICO in 1986 and served as president from 1988 to 1990. He\nfounded the Heritage Committee of Cedar Grove UNICO and was\ninstrumental in procuring educational videos on Italian heritage. Mr.\nAlessi served on the UNICO scholarship committee and was active in\nvarious fundraising events. He was appointed to the honorary advisory\ncommittee for the Newark Public Library's International Cultural\nFestival in Italy. Mr. Alessi serves with Dr. Bruno as a trustee for\nthe Center for Italian and Italian-American Culture. In addition, he\nalso holds the position as co-chairman of the center's annual gala.\nFinally, Mr. Alessi is\n\n[[Page E1944]]\n\na member of One-Voice, an organization founded by Dr. Emanuel A.\nAlfano, who is dedicated to eradicating negative Italian stereotyping\nand defamation.\n Mr. Speaker, I cannot express enough appreciation and admiration for\nthese two gentlemen. They have already contributed more to their\ncommunities than most people could even dream of accomplishing in a\nlifetime. Their actions and characters carry the highest level of\nintegrity and should be noted by all. Mr. Speaker, Italian-Americans\nhave suffered many hardships over the years, and it is thanks to\nindividuals such as Dr. Bruno and Mr. Alessi that we begin to\nreestablish our rich and notable heritage. Thank you gentlemen, and may\nyou continue your noble efforts to propel the heritage of Italian-\nAmericans.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1943", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE AGING ON THEIR 35TH ANNIVERSARY", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1943", "E1943", "[{\"name\": \"Thomas M. Foglietta\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1943", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1943]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nTRIBUTE TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE AGING\n ON THEIR 35TH ANNIVERSARY\n\n ______\n\n HON. THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA\n\n of pennsylvania\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to\nthe American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging who will\ncelebrate their 35th anniversary this October in Philadelphia.\n On November 26, 1961, a group of dedicated long-term care\nprofessionals met for 4 days at New York's Arden House to discuss the\nfuture role and mission of nonprofit providers in long-term care. Out\nof those discussions came the American Association of Homes and\nServices for the Aging.\n From its earliest days, the association and its members believed in a\nphilosophy of care and service to the Nation's elderly. Its leaders\ncoined the phrase ``social components of care'' to describe how\nsignificant both the nurturing and spiritual aspects of long-term care\nwere in ensuring quality of care for residents of the Nation's health\ncare and senior housing organizations. The association also pioneered\nthe concept of resident decisionmaking, believing in the right of\nresidents of homes for the aging to have a voice in their care and in\nthe activities of the facility.\n The association's vision for the future is one in which every\ncommunity offers an integrated and coordinated continuum of high\nquality, innovative and affordable health care, housing and home, and\ncommunity-based services. Within this framework the qualities of\ncompassion, benevolence, individual dignity, self-determination,\ndiversity, and social responsibility will be most highly valued.\n As 1996 draws to a close, there are 5,000 full members of the AAHSA,\n39 State association partners, and 800 affiliate members. Its\nmembership includes not only nursing homes and continuing care\nretirement communities, but also subsidized and market-rate housing for\nlow- and moderate-income elderly as well as home and community-based\nservice organizations. The association sponsors a nationally recognized\naccreditation program for continuing care retirement communities and\ninitiated the International Association of Homes and Services for the\nAging to share the knowledge of aging services across international\nborders.\n From October 28 to 31, the AAHSA will hold its annual meeting in\nPhiladelphia. In light of this organization's commitment to continuing\nimprovement in the care of our Nation's elderly we are honored to host\nthis event which will draw over 5,000 people to our city. Mr. Speaker,\nI ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating this association on\n35 years of service to the Nation's elderly.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1944", "E1944", "[{\"name\": \"David Dreier\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1944", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1944]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO CLAREMONT McKENNA COLLEGE\n\n ______\n\n HON. DAVID DREIER\n\n of california\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to salute my\nalma mater on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.\n Claremont McKenna College was founded in 1946. Most of its students\nwere returning veterans who were given a chance to earn a college\neducation thanks to the GI bill.\n Those young men, including my father, were determined to take the\nlessons of war and build a peaceful and prosperous Nation.\n Founding President George Benson, who will celebrate his 89th\nbirthday in January, kept Claremont McKenna College focused on its\nmission to educate young men and women for responsible leadership in\nbusiness and government.\n Today, Claremont McKenna is recognized as one of the Nation's finest\ncolleges and enrolls nearly a thousand students from across the country\nand the world.\n Among its graduates are leaders in business, the arts, education,\nscience, medicine, and of course, public service.\n I am proud to be a graduate of Claremont McKenna College and invite\nmy colleagues to join me in saluting a remarkable institution.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO DR. ARMAND LEONE", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1944", "E1944", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1944", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1944]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO DR. ARMAND LEONE\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an\noutstanding individual of the Eighth Congressional District of New\nJersey, Dr. Armand Leone.\n Dr. Leone has given a great deal of time and care to the people of\nPaterson through his undying service at Wayne General Hospital. A\nnative of Paterson, Dr. Leone began his medical career in his hometown\nafter graduating from New York Medical College in 1947. His first\nposition was as a rotating intern at Wayne General, followed by a\nresidency in pathology. With these experiences, Dr. Leone realized his\ninner calling to practice at Wayne General Hospital.\n Next, Dr. Leone served as the first radiology resident at St.\nBarnabas Hospital. His enthusiasm and dedication led him to serve a\nresidency in radiation therapy and two preceptorships in nuclear\nmedicine. Dr. Leone fulfilled his practicing desire in 1951 when he was\nappointed to the medical staff of Wayne General Hospital--then Paterson\nGeneral. Later, he was appointed clinical professor at New York Medical\nCollege in Westchester. Currently, Dr. Leone serves as chairman of the\ndepartment of radiology at Wayne General and chairman of the Wayne\nGeneral Hospital Foundation.\n Mr. Speaker, it is overwhelmingly apparent that Dr. Leone's\ndedication to the practice of medicine warrants utmost admiration. His\ndevotion to Wayne General Hospital and the individuals it serves goes\nabove and beyond the call of normal doctors. I applaud the achievements\nof Dr. Armand Leone and wish him many more years of excellence in\npracticing medicine.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SOUTH DADE/HOMESTEAD MOTORSPORTS EXHIBITION CENTER", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1944", "E1945", "[{\"name\": \"Peter Deutsch\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1944", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1944-E1945]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SOUTH DADE/HOMESTEAD MOTORSPORTS EXHIBITION CENTER\n\n ______\n\n HON. PETER DEUTSCH\n\n of florida\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues from south\nFlorida in support of a new, significant economic development project\nwhich is planned for Homestead, FL. This project involves the\nestablishment of a Motorsports Exhibition and Education Center as part\nof the existing South Dade/Homestead Motorsports Complex.\n Mr. Speaker, in 1992, Homestead and South Dade County experienced\nextreme damage from Hurricane Andrew which destroyed countless homes\nand businesses. In the years since the hurricane, we in south Florida\nhave worked hard to restore and revitalize the economy of this\ncommunity. It takes a true partnership of government and business to\nmake such an economic recovery. The Motorsports Exhibition Center is an\nexample of such a partnership. The city of Homestead and a number of\nbusinesses involved in the Motorsports Speedway have joined together in\na nonprofit foundation to seek funding for establishment of the\nexhibition center which is expected to draw some half million tourists\nto the Motorsports Complex each year. The project will create hundreds\nof jobs throughout the South Dade area.\n Mr. Speaker, the city of Homestead has indicated that it plans to\napproach the Economic Development Administration [EDA] for partial\nfunding of the Exhibition Center. We are hopeful that the agency will\nmove expeditiously to review the project so that it may consider\nfunding in fiscal year 1997.\n\n[[Page E1945]]\n\n Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for the job that\nEDA has been doing in Florida and around the country in addressing\nlocal economic development needs. I look forward to working with the\nEDA officials in our region on the Motorsports Exhibition Center\nproject.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE RECEIVERSHIP COMPACT", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1944", "E1944", "[{\"name\": \"Carlos J. Moorhead\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"189\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1944", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1944]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE RECEIVERSHIP COMPACT\n\n ______\n\n HON. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD\n\n of california\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, the Interstate Insurance Receivership\nCompact is the product of the efforts of a group of state insurance\nregulators and legislators that were concerned about the problems that\nhave been presented by the administration of multistate insurance\nreceiverships. After examining the compact and its plan of operation, I\nbecame convinced that the compact would make an important contribution\nto the regulation of insurance by the States. As a result, I introduced\nHouse Joint Resolution 189 for the purpose of granting the explicit\nconsent of Congress to the compact. I have come to believe, however,\nthat the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact does not actually\nrequire congressional consent to be valid.\n The compact has now been adopted by four States, in addition to my\nhome State of California, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, and New\nHampshire. The compact is in the process of organizing its commission\nand establishing its rules so that it can fulfill its intended purpose\nof facilitating the open, fair, and efficient administration of\ninsurance receiverships that have a multistate impact.\n A hearing on House Joint Resolution 189 took place before the\nCommercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary\nCommittee of the House of Representatives on September 18, 1996. The\ntestimony presented at the hearing, and the written submissions\nreceived both before and after the hearing, were, without exception,\nsupportive of the compact and in some cases, enthusiastic. Testimony\nwas personally presented by Senator Leo Fraser, of New Hampshire, a\nlegislator who was instrumental in advocating the compact concept, and\nRobert Lange, director of insurance of the State of Nebraska and the\nfirst chairman of the compact commission.\n Written testimony was submitted by Peter Gallanis, special deputy\nreceiver for the State of Illinois. In addition, Gov. Jim Edgar, of\nIllinois, and Gov. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, wrote to Judiciary Chairman\nHenry Hyde and expressed their active support for the agreement.\nSignificantly, no opinions to the contrary were expressed at the\nhearing.\n A number of important points were made in support of the compact.\nFirst, the purpose of the compact and its operation are fully\nconsistent with the State regulation of insurance as set forth in the\nMcCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. The compact facilitates and enhances\nwhat the States are already doing. It merely allows them to do so more\nefficiently.\n Second, the terms of the compact clearly establish that there is no\nusurpation of any Federal prerogative by the compact and there is no\nunlawful delegation of State authority to the compact or its\ncommission. The drafter of the compact carefully provided that each\nState would have the opportunity and ability to withdraw from the\ncompact if it should decide to do so. In addition, each State has the\nability to opt out of a rule promulgated by the compact commission if\nthat State finds the rule to be undesirable.\n Interstate compacts have made an important contribution to the\nability of the States to govern and to regulate, and, therefore, to the\nconstitutional system of federalism. Many compacts have received\nexplicit congressional consent. Many others have not received consent\nbecause the law, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not\nrequire it. The testimony, letters of support, and the language of the\ncompact itself have now convinced me that the Interstate Insurance\nReceivership Compact is one of those compacts that does not require the\nexplicit consent of Congress.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1945-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1945", "E1951", "[{\"name\": \"Wes Cooley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"260\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"450\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"925\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"961\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1022\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1158\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1977\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2099\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2127\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1945", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Pages E1945-E1951]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX\n\n ______\n\n speech of\n\n HON. WES COOLEY\n\n of oregon\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Friday, October 4, 1996\n\n Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to my colleague's attention\nthe 1995-96 Private Property Rights Congressional Vote Index created\nand published by the League of Private Property Voters in Battle\nGround, WA.\n This index, first published in 1990, was developed in response to\nactions of Federal agencies that result in the taking of private\nproperty without just compensation. The current index is sponsored by\nseveral hundred grassroots-wise use and private property rights groups.\nAmong the Oregon cosponsors are Oregon Cattlemens Association, Oregon\nFarm Bureau, Oregon Lands Coalition, Oregonians for Food and Shelter,\nand Oregonians in Action.\n I urge my colleagues to read and study this index to learn more about\nthe concerns of private property rights advocates.\n\n United States House of Representatives\n\n The votes listed below show how the House supported (S) or\n opposed (O) the League of Private Property Voters position. A\n description of each vote is listed below along with the\n scorecard.\n You will gain the greatest benefit by first looking up your\n Representative to see what his private property score was on\n the right side of the scorecard. Then read each vote\n description. The league private property position listed near\n the top of the scorecard shows how we believe your\n Representative should have voted on each issue. Check to see\n whether you Representative supported (S) or opposed (O) the\n League private property position.\n\n U.S. House Votes\n\n house vote #1: Weakening unfunded mandate reforms\n\n H.R. 5 requires a Congressional Budget Office cost analysis\n and specifics on how a bill or regulation would be financed\n on any measure imposing costs of more than $50 million on\n state and local governments. Representative James Moran (D-\n VA) offered a substitute amendment to severely weaken H.R. 5\n by removing a provision in the bill blocking the\n consideration of legislation that does not provide money for\n meeting a federal mandate. The Moran substitute was rejected\n February 1, 1995 on a 152-278 vote. Private property rights\n supporters voted NO.\n\n house vote #2: regulatory moratorium\n\n H.R. 450 would temporarily prohibit federal agencies from\n implementing new federal regulations. The freeze would be in\n effect until December 31, 1995, or when the regulatory\n revisions in the ``Contract With America'' were enacted,\n whichever is sooner, and would retroactively cover\n regulations proposed or put into effect since November 20,\n 1994. The bill would exempt routine regulations and those\n that address an ``imminent threat to health or safety.'' H.R.\n 450 passed 276-146 on February 24, 1995. The President's\n position was a no vote. Private property advocates voted YES.\n\nhouse vote #3: strengthening risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis\n for new regulation act\n\n H.R. 1022 requires that any new regulations affecting the\n environment, health and safety that would likely cost the\n economy more than $25 million annually must first undergo an\n assessment of risk and the relative costs and benefits.\n Representatives Joe Barton (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and\n Billy Tauzin (D-LA) offered an amendment to strengthen H.R.\n 1022 by establishing a process whereby citizens could\n petition federal agencies to review EXISTING regulations. The\n Barton-Crapo-Tauzin Amendment was rejected on a 206-220 vote\n on February 28, 1995. Private property rights advocates voted\n YES.\n\n house vote #4: private property rights--30 percent threshold\n\n H.R. 925 was a private property rights bill that would\n provide for landowners to be compensated for the loss of the\n use of their land caused by federal regulations. The Goss\n Amendment (Porter Goss (R-FL)) would have weakened H.R. 925\n in two ways. First it would have raised the threshold to 30%\n from 10% before the bill would kick in and require\n compensation to the landowner. Second, the Goss Amendment\n would have required that the 30% apply to all the landowners\n property, not just the portion affected by the regulation as\n stated in H.R. 925. The Goss Amendment was defeated 210-211\n on March 2, 1995 (the House eventually settled on a 20%\n threshold). The property rights position was a NO.\n\n house vote #5: private property rights\n\n H.R. 925 would require federal agencies to compensate\n private property owners for federal actions taken under the\n Endangered Species Act, the Wetlands provisions of the Clean\n Water Law and the 1985 Farm Bill, and certain laws affecting\n Western water rights that reduce the value of any section of\n their properties by 20 percent or more. If a regulation took\n 50% or more of the property value, the landowner would be\n able to force the government to buy out his property. H.R.\n 925 passed 277-148 on March 3, 1995. The President's position\n was a no vote. Private property advocates voted YES.\n\n house vote #6: emergency harvest of dead and dying trees on federal\n lands\n\n During the last five years a net of 21 billion board feet\n of dead and dying timber has accumulated on Forest Service\n lands nationwide. Unfortunately, existing federal barriers\n have prevented these trees from being harvested before they\n deteriorate and lose commercial value. They merely rot and\n provide no employment for rural timber economies and increase\n the cost of forest products used to build houses. H.R. 1158,\n the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions\n bill, contained a common sense provision by Representatives\n Charles Taylor (R-NC) and Don Young (R-AK) which established\n expedited procedures for removing these dead and dying trees\n while still retaining important environmental safeguards. An\n amendment by Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL) to strike the Taylor-\n Young provisions and thus retain existing barriers to\n harvesting these trees was defeated on March 15, 1995 by a\n 150-275 vote. Private property rights supporters voted NO.\n\n house vote #7: wetlands definition and compensation\n\n H.R. 961 is a bill to revise the Clean Water Act and\n regulation of wetlands. The Boehlert Amendment (Sherwood\n Boehlert (R-NY)) would have gutted H.R. 961. It would have\n broadened the definition of wetlands to cover more land and\n eliminated the provisions of the bill that would require\n federal compensation for private landowners affected by\n wetlands regulation. This amendment was supported by 39\n moderate Republicans and opposed by 51 conservative\n Democrats. The Boehlert Amendment was defeated 185-242 on May\n 16, 1995. The private property vote was a NO.\n\n house vote #8: more funding for converting private property into\n federal property\n\n H.R. 1977, the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations bill,\n contained $51 million for federal agencies to acquire only\n the highest priority lands for national parks, national\n forests and wildlife refuges. Representative George Miller\n (D-CA) offered an amendment to increase this amount by $183\n million which is offset by a corresponding cut in fossil fuel\n research and development funding. The Miller Amendment was\n defeated 170-253 on July 13, 1995. Private property rights\n supporters voted NO.\n\n house vote #9: funding for national trust for historic preservation\n\n An amendment to the Fiscal year 1996 Interior\n Appropriations bill (H.R. 1977) by Rep. Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)\n would have eliminated the $3.5 million provided in the bill\n for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The House\n Appropriations Committee had already decided to defund the\n trust over 2 years but the Hutchinson Amendment would have\n cut the funds immediately. The Hutchinson Amendment was\n defeated 129-281 on July 13, 1995. The private property\n position was YES.\n\n[[Page E1946]]\n\n house vote #10: east mojave national preserve management\n\n Congress passed the California Desert Act as one of the\n last things it did in the 103rd Congress in 1994. In 1995,\n Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA) inserted a provision in the\n FY 1996 Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 1977) that kept\n management of the East Mojave National Preserve in the hands\n of the Bureau of Land Management instead of turning it over\n to the National Park Service as planned in the California\n Desert Act. Rep. Vic Fazio (D-CA) offered an amendment to\n turn the area over to the National Park Service and transfer\n $600,000 given to the BLM to manage the area to the Park\n Service. The Fazio Amendment was defeated by a vote of 174-\n 227 on July 13, 1995. The private property rights provision\n was a NO vote.\n\n house vote #11: no more roads in forest service roadless areas\n\n Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-RI) offered an amendment to the FY\n 1996 Interior Appropriations bill to stop the Forest Service\n from constructing roads or preparing timber sales in roadless\n areas of 3,000 acres or more. These areas have not been\n designated by Congress as Wilderness and should not be\n managed as such unless Congress determines otherwise. The\n Kennedy Amendment was defeated by a vote of 155-255 on July\n 18, 1995. Private property rights advocates voted NO.\n\n house vote #12: controlling excesses of the environmental protection\n agency (epa)\n\n H.R. 2099, the bill funding Veterans Administration,\n Department of Housing and Urban Development and Independent\n Agencies contained 17 anti-regulatory provisions (called\n riders) to reign in excesses by the EPA. Of greatest interest\n to private landowners were riders dealing with the Clean\n Water Act's onerous wetlands program. Representatives\n Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Louis Stokes (D-OH) offered an\n amendment to strike the 17 anti-regulatory riders from H.R.\n 2099. The House, which had approved the Boehlert-Stokes\n Amendment three days earlier, rejected it on July 31, 1995 on\n a 210-210 tie vote. A yes vote supported the Clinton\n Administration's position. Private property rights supporters\n voted NO.\n\n house vote #13: political advocacy restrictions\n\n The Skaggs Amendment (David Skaggs (D-C)) aimed to strike\n from the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill (H.R. 2127) language\n opposed by liberals that prohibits any Federal grant from\n going to any group that has spent over 5% of its annual non-\n governmental income in any of the previous five years on\n political advocacy, including lobbying. The Skaggs Amendment\n was defeated 187 to 232. The private property position was\n a NO.\n\n House Vote #14: NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM OVERHAUL\n\n H.R. 260 offered by Rep. James Hansen (R-UT) would direct\n the Interior Secretary to prepare a review of National Park\n Service operations within two years of enactment and make\n recommendations to Congress on improvements such as closing\n parks or changing management practices. There are well\n recognized financial and other problems in the National\n Parks. The agency is billions of dollars behind in deferred\n maintenance and land acquisition. The Hansen bill only asked\n the Park Service to make recommendations for changes. It did\n not make any immediate changes. However, in the new highly\n partisan House the proposal was defeated 180 to 231 on\n September 19, 1995. A no vote was in support of the\n President's position. Private property advocates voted YES.\n\n House Vote #15: MINING PATENTS\n\n The House added an amendment to the FY 1996 Interior\n Appropriations bill (H.R. 1977) extending the moratorium on\n mining patents for another year. The Senate rejected this\n amendment and substituted an amendment which ended the\n moratorium and raised the price charged for a patent to fair\n market value. The conference committee concurred with the\n Senate. Representative Sidney Yates (D-IL) offered a motion\n on the House floor to recommit the FY 1996 Interior\n Appropriations bill (H.R. 1977) to the House-Senate\n conference committee with instructions to include a one year\n ban on expending money for processing or granting mining\n patents. The Yates motion passed 277-147 on September 29,\n 1995. A vote for the motion was a vote to deny many mining\n claimants their property rights. A no vote was the vote to\n protect property rights (See vote #6 in the Senate).\n\n HOUSE SCOREBOARD\n [House key: S: Supported private property position; O: Opposed private property position; X: House Speaker excused himself from voting; ?: Did not vote; I: Ineligible to vote at the time]\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Percent support\n Private property position Congressman N 1 Y 2 Y 3 N 4 Y 5 N 6 N 7 N 8 Y 9 N 10 N 11 N 12 N 13 Y 14 N 15 -----------------------------\n (votes) When voting All votes\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n ALABAMA\n\nBachus S (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S O S 87 87\nBevill T (D).............................. S S S S S S S S O O S O O O O 60 60\nBrowder G (D)............................. S S S S S S S S O O S S O O O 67 67\nCallahan S (R)............................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nCramer R (D).............................. S S S S S S S S O O S S O O O 67 67\nEverett T (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nHillard E (D)............................. O O O O S O S O O O S O O O O 20 20\n\n ALASKA\n\nYoung D (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S ? ? S S 92 80\n\n ARIZONA\n\nHayworth J (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nKolbe J (R)............................... S S O O S S O S O S S S S S S 73 73\nPastor E (D).............................. O O O O O O O O ? O O O O O S 7 7\nSalmon M (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nShadegg J (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nStump B (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n ARKANSAS\n\nDickey J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nHutchinson T (R).......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nLincoln B (D)............................. S S O O S S S O O S S S O O O 53 53\nThornton R (D)............................ O O O S S S O O O O S O O O O 27 27\n\n CALIFORNIA\n\nBaker B (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nBecerra X (D)............................. ? ? O O O O O O ? O O ? O O O 0 0\nBeilenson A (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nBerman H (D).............................. O O O O O O ? O O O O O O O O 0 0\nBilbray B (R)............................. S S S O S S S S S S S S S O S 87 87\nBono S (R)................................ S S S S S S S ? ? ? S S S ? S 100 73\nBrown G (D)............................... O O O ? ? O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nCalvert K (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nCondit G (D).............................. S S S S S O S S S S O S S O S 80 80\nCox C (R)................................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nCunningham R (R).......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nDellums R (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nDixon J (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nDooley C (D).............................. S S S O S S S S O O S S ? O O 64 60\nDoolittle J (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nDornan R (R).............................. S S S S ? S S S S S S S S S S 100 93\nDreier D (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nEshoo A (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nFarr S (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nFazio V (D)............................... O S O O S ? S O O O S O O O O 29 27\nFilner B (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O ? O O 0 0\nGallegly E (R)............................ S S S S S S S S O ? S S S S S 93 87\nHarman J (D).............................. S S O O S O O O O O O O O O O 20 20\nHerger W (R).............................. S S S S S ? S S S S S S S S S 100 93\nHorn S (R)................................ S S S ? S S S S O O O O O S O 57 53\nHunter D (R).............................. ? S ? S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 87\nKim J (R)................................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nLantos T (D).............................. O O O O S O O O O O O O O ? O 7 7\nLewis J (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nLofgren Z (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nMartinez M (D)............................ S O O ? S S S O ? ? O O O O O 33 27\nMatsui R (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n[[Page E1947]]\n\nMcKeon H (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nMiller G (D).............................. O O ? O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nMineta N (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nMoorhead C (R)............................ S ? O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 87\nPackard R (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nPelosi N (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nPombo R (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nRadanovich G (R).......................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nRiggs F (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nRohrabacher D (R)......................... S S S S S S S S S S O S S S O 87 87\nRoybal-Allard L (D)....................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nRoyce E (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nSeastrand A (R)........................... S S S S S ? S S S S S S S S S 100 93\nStark P (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O ? ? O S O 8 7\nThomas B (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nTorres E (D).............................. O O O O O O O O ? O O O O O O 0 0\nTucker W (D).............................. O O O O O S O O O O O ? O ? ? 8 7\nWaters M (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nWaxman H (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nWoolsey L (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n COLORADO\n\nAllard W (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nHefley J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nMcInnis S (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nSchaefer D (R)............................ S S S S S ? S S O S S S S S S 93 87\nSchroeder P (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nSkaggs D (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n CONNECTICUT\n\nDeLauro R (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nFranks G (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S O S O S S O 80 80\nGejdenson S (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O ? 0 0 0\nJohnson N (R)............................. S S O O O S O S O S O O S S O 47 47\nKennelly B (D)............................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nShays C (R)............................... S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20\n\n DELAWARE\n\nCastle M (R).............................. S S O O O S O S O S O O S S O 47 47\n\n FLORIDA\n\nBilirakis M (R)........................... S S S O S S S S S S O S S O O 73 73\nBrown C (D)............................... O O O O O S O O O O O O O ? O 7 7\nCanady C (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S O S O 87 87\nDeutsch P (D)............................. S ? O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nDiaz-Balart L (R)......................... S S O S S S O S O S S O S O O 60 60\nFoley M (R)............................... S S O O S S S S O S S S S O O 67 67\nFowler T (R).............................. S S O O S S S S O S S S S ? O 71 67\nGibbons S (D)............................. O ? O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nGoss P (R)................................ S S O O O S O S O S S O S O O 47 47\nHastings A (D)............................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nJohnston H (D)............................ O O O O ? O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nMcCollum B (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S O O 87 87\nMeek C (D)................................ O ? O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nMica J (R)................................ S S S S S S S O O S S S S S S 87 87\nMiller D (R).............................. S S O O O S S S O S O S S S O 60 60\nPeterson P (D)............................ O S S O S S O O O O S O O O O 33 33\nRos-Lehtinen I (R)........................ S S O O S S O S O S S O S O O 53 53\nScarborough J (R)......................... ? S S S S S S S ? ? S O S O O 75 60\nShaw E (R)................................ S S O O S S S S O S O O S S O 60 60\nStearns C (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93\nThurman K (D)............................. O S S O S S O O O O S ? ? O O 38 33\nWeldon D (R).............................. S S S S S S S O S S S S S S S 93 93\nYoung C (R)............................... S S S O S S O S S S S O S O O 67 67\n\n GEORGIA\n\nBarr B (R)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nBishop S (D).............................. O O S O S S S O O O S O O O O 33 33\nChambliss S (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nCollins M (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nDeal N (R)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S O O 80 80\nGingrich N (R)............................ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NA NA\nKingston J (R)............................ S S 0 S S S S S O S S S S O O 73 73\nLewis J (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nLinder J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nMcKinney C (D)............................ O O O O ? O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nNorwood C (R)............................. S S S S S S S S 0 S S S S S S 93 93\n\n HAWAII\n\nAbercrombie N (D)......................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nMink P (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n IDAHO\n\nChenoweth H (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S ? ? S 100 87\nCrapo M (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n ILLINOIS\n\nCollins C (D)............................. O O O O ? O ? O O O O O O O ? 0 0\nCostello J (D)............................ O ? S O S S S S O ? O O O O O 38 33\nCrane P (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93\nDurbin R (D).............................. O O O O S O O S O O O O O O O 13 13\nEvans L (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nEwing T (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nFawell H (R).............................. S S O S S S O S S S O O S S O 67 67\nFlanagan M (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nGutierrez L (D)........................... O O ? O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nHastert D (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nHyde H (R)................................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nLaHood R (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S O O S 80 80\nLipinski W (D)............................ O S ? O O O ? S S ? S O O O O 33 27\nManzullo D (R)............................ S S O S S S S S S S S S S S O 87 87\nPorter J (R).............................. S S O O O O O S S O O O S O ? 36 33\nPoshard G (D)............................. S S S O S S S S O O O S O O O 53 53\nReynolds M (D)............................ O O O O S O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14 7\nRush B (D)................................ O ? ? O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nWeller J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nYates S (D)............................... O O O ? O O O O O ? O ? O O O 0 0\n\n INDIANA\n\nBurton D (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n[[Page E1948]]\n\nBuyer S (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S ? 93 87\nHamilton L (D)............................ S S O O S S S O O O S O O O O 40 40\nHostettler J (R).......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nJacobs A (D).............................. S S O O S O O O O O S O O O O 27 27\nMcIntosh D (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nMyers J (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nRoemer T (D).............................. S S O O S S S S O O S S O O O 53 53\nSouder M (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S O S S O O 80 80\nVisclosky P (D)........................... O O O O O O O O S S O O O O O 13 13\n\n IOWA\n\nGanske G (R).............................. S S O S S S S S O S S S S S O 80 80\nLatham T (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nLeach J (R)............................... S S O O S S S O O S O O O O O 40 40\nLightfoot J (R)........................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nNussle J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n KANSAS\n\nBrownback S (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nMeyers J (R).............................. S S O O S O O O O O O ? S S O 36 33\nRoberts P (R)............................. S S O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93\nTiahrt P (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n KENTUCKY\n\nBaesler S (D)............................. S S S ? S S S O O O S S O O O 57 53\nBunning J (R)............................. S S O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93\nLewis R (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nRogers H (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nWard M (D)................................ O O ? O O O O O ? ? S O O O O 8 7\nWhitfield E (R)........................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S O S 87 87\n\n LOUISIANA\n\nBaker R (R)............................... S S S S S O S S ? ? S S S S S 92 80\nFields C (D).............................. O O O O O S O O O O S O O ? ? 15 13\nHayes J (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nJefferson W (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O S S O O ? O 14 13\nLivingston R (R).......................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nMcCrery J (R)............................. S S S S S S S S ? ? S S S S S 100 80\nTauzin W (R).............................. S S S S S S S ? ? ? S S S S S 100 80\n\n MAINE\n\nBaldacci J (D)............................ S O O O S O O O ? ? O O O O O 15 13\nLongley J (R)............................. S S S S S S S O O S S O S S O 73 73\n\n MARYLAND\n\nBartlett R (R)............................ S S O S S S S S S S S S S S O 87 87\nCardin B (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O\nEhrlich R (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S O S S O 80 80\nGilchrest W (R)........................... S S O O O O O S O O S O O S O 33 33\nHoyer S (D)............................... O O O ? O S O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nMfume K (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O\nMorella C (R)............................. S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nWynn A (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O\n\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\nBlute P (R)............................... S S O O O O S S O S S S S O O 53 53\nFrank B (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O ? O 0 0\nKennedy J (D)............................. S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nMarkey E (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nMeehan M (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 13 13\nMoakley J (D)............................. O O O ? ? O O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? O 0 0\nNeal R (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nOlver J (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nStudds G (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nTorkildsen P (R).......................... S S O O O O O O O O O O O S O 20 20\n\n MICHIGAN\n\nBarcia J (D).............................. S S S O S S S O O S S O O O O 53 53\nBonior D (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nCamp D (R)................................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nChrysler D (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nCollins B (D)............................. O O O O O ? O ? ? ? ? O O ? O 0 0\nConyers J (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nDingell J (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nEhlers V (R).............................. S ? O O O O O S O S S O S O O 36 33\nHoekstra P (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nKildee D (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nKnollenberg J (R)......................... S S O S S S S S O S S S S S S 87 87\nLevin S (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nRivers L (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nSmith N (R)............................... S S O S S S S S S S S S S S O 87 87\nStupak B (D).............................. O O O O S S O O O S S O O O O 27 27\nUpton F (R)............................... S S S O S S O S S S S O S O O 67 67\n\n MINNESOTA\n\nGutknecht G (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S O S S S S 93 93\nLuther W (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nMinge D (D)............................... S S O O O O S O O S O S O O O 33 33\nOberstar J (D)............................ O O O O O S O O O O S O O ? O 14 13\nPeterson C (D)............................ S S O S S S S S O S S S S S O 80 80\nRamstad J (R)............................. S S O O O S O O S O O O S O O 33 33\nSabo M (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nVento B (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\n\n MISSISSIPPI\n\nMontgomery G (D).......................... S S S S S S S ? O S S S S O O 79 79\nParker M (R).............................. S S S S S S S S ? ? S S S ? S 100 80\nTaylor G (D).............................. O S O O S S O S S S S O S O O 53 53\nThompson B (D)............................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o\nWicker R (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\n\n MISSOURI\n\nClay W (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nDanner P (D).............................. S S O S S S S S S S S S O O O 73 73\nEmerson B (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nGephardt R (D)............................ O O O O O ? ? O O O O O O O O 0 0\nHancock M (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nMcCarthy K (D)............................ S ? O O O S O O O O O O O O O 14 13\n\n[[Page E1949]]\n\nSkelton I (D)............................. S S S S S S S S O O S S O O O 67 67\nTalent J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nVolkmer H (D)............................. O O O S S S S O ? ? O S ? ? O 45 33\n\n MONTANA\n\nWilliams P (D)............................ O O O O O P O O O ? O O ? O O 0 0\n\n NEBRASKA\n\nBarrett B (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nBereuter D (R)............................ S S O O S S S O O O S O ? O O 43 40\nChristensen J (R)......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n NEVADA\n\nEnsign J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nVucanovich B (R).......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n NEW HAMPSHIRE\n\nBass C (R)................................ S S S O S S O O O S S O S O S 60 60\nZeliff B (R).............................. S S S S S S S O S S S S S O S 87 87\n\n NEW JERSEY\n\nAndrews R (D)............................. S ? O O O S O O O O S O ? O O 23 30\nFranks B (R).............................. S S S O O S O O O S O O S S O 47 47\nFrelinghuysen R (R)....................... S S O S O S O S O S S S S O O 60 60\nLoBiondo F (R)............................ S S S S S S O O O O O O S O O 47 47\nMartini B (R)............................. S S O O O S O O O O O O S O O 27 27\nMenendez R (D)............................ S O O O O S O O O O O O O O O 13 13\nPallone F (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nPayne D (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nRoukema M (R)............................. S S O O O O O O O S S O S S O 40 40\nSaxton H (R).............................. S S O S S S O O S S O O S S S 67 67\nSmith C (R)............................... S S S O S S O O O S S O S O O 53 53\nTorricelli R (D).......................... O O O ? O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nZimmer D (R).............................. S S O O O S O O O O O O S O O 27 27\n\n NEW MEXICO\n\nRichardson B (D).......................... O O O O O O O O ? ? ? O O O O 0 0\nSchiff S (R).............................. S S O ? O S S S O S S O S S S 71 67\nSkeen J (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\n\n NEW YORK\n\nAckerman G (D)............................ O O O O O O O O O ? O O O O O 0 0\nBoehlert S (R)............................ S O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 13 13\nEngel E (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nFlake F (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O ? O O O 0 0\nForbes M (R).............................. S S S O S S O O O O O O S O O 40 40\nFrisa D (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S O O 80 80\nGilman B (R).............................. S S O O S O O O O O S O S S O 40 40\nHinchey M (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nHoughton A (R)............................ S S S S S S S S O S S O O S O 73 73\nKelly S (R)............................... S S O O S S O O O O O O S O O 33 33\nKing P (R)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S O 87 87\nLaFalce J (D)............................. O O O O O O S S O ? O O O O O 14 13\nLazio R (R)............................... S S O O O O O O O O O O S O O 20 20\nLowey N (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nMaloney C (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nManton D (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O ? O O 0 0\nMcHugh J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S O ? 86 80\nMcNulty M (D)............................. S S O S S S O S S O O O O S O 53 53\nMolinari S (R)............................ S S O S S S S S O S S S S O O 73 73\nNadler J (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nOwens M (D)............................... O O O ? O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nPaxon B (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nQuinn J (R)............................... S S S O O S S S O S S O S O O 60 60\nRangel C (D).............................. O O O O ? ? O O O O O O O S O 8 7\nSchumer C (D)............................. S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nSerrano J (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nSlaughter L (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nSolomon G (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S O O 87 87\nTowns E (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O ? O O 0 0\nVelazquez N (D)........................... O O O O O O O O ? O O O O O O 0 0\nWalsh J (R)............................... S S O O S S S S O S S S S O S 73 73\n\n NORTH CAROLINA\n\nBallenger C (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nBurr R (R)................................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nClayton E (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nCoble H (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S O O 87 87\nFunderburk D (R).......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S O O 87 87\nHefner W (D).............................. 0 S S O S S S ? ? ? S O O O O 50 40\nHeineman F (R)............................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nJones W (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 0 93 93\nMyrick S (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nRose C (D)................................ S S S O S O S O O ? O O O S O 43 40\nTaylor C (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nWatt M (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n NORTH DAKOTA\n\nPomeroy E (D)............................. O S O O S S S S O O S O O O O 40 40\n\n OHIO\n\nBoehner J (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nBrown S (D)............................... O O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nChabot S (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nCremeans F (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nGillmor P (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S O S S S 87 87\nHall T (D)................................ S O O O S O O S O O O ? O O O 21 20\nHobson D (R).............................. S S S O S S S S O S S S S O O 73 73\nHoke M (R)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S ? S S S 93 87\nKaptur M (D).............................. ? S O O O O O S O O S O O ? O 23 20\nKasich J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nLaTourette S (R).......................... S S S S S S S S O S O O O O O 60 60\nNey B (R)................................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nOxley M (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nPortman R (R)............................. S S O O S S S S S O S S S O O 67 67\nPryce D (R)............................... S S S O S S S S O ? S S S ? O 77 67\nRegula R (R).............................. S S O O S S S S O O S O S S O 60 60\nSawyer T (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n[[Page E1950]]\n\nStokes L (D).............................. O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O 7 7\nTraficant J (D)........................... O S O S S S S S O S S S O O O 60 60\n\n OKLAHOMA\n\nBrewster B (D)............................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nCoburn T (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S ? S S O S 93 87\nIstook E (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93\nLargent S (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nLucas F (R)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nWatts J (R)............................... S S S S S S S S ? ? S S S S S 100 87\n\n OREGON\n\nBunn J (R)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nCooley W (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nDeFazio P (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nFurse E (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nWyden R (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O O S O O O O 7 7\n\n PENNSYLVANIA\n\nBorski R (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nClinger W (R)............................. S S O O S S S S O S S S S O S 73 73\nCoyne W (D)............................... O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O 7 7\nDoyle M (D)............................... O O O O S S O S O O S O O O O 27 27\nEnglish P (R)............................. S S O O S S S S O S S O S O S 67 67\nFattah C (D).............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nFoglietta T (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nFox J (R)................................. S S O S S O O O O S O O S O O 40 40\nGekas G (R)............................... S S O S S S S S S S S S S S S 93 93\nGoodling B (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S ? S S S O 93 87\nGreenwood J (R)........................... S S O O O O O ? ? ? S O S O O 33 27\nHolden T (D).............................. O O O S S S S S O O S O ? O O 43 40\nKanjorski P (D)........................... O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O 7 7\nKlink R (D)............................... O O O O O S ? S O O S O O O O 21 20\nMascara F (D)............................. O O O O S S O S O O O O O O O 20 20\nMcDade J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O O S S O S O 86 80\nMcHale P (D).............................. S O O O S S O O O O O O O O O 20 20\nMurtha J (D).............................. O O O S O S S S O O S O O O O 33 33\nShuster B (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S S 100 93\nWalker R (R).............................. S S O S S S S S S S S S S S ? 93 87\nWeldon C (R).............................. S S O O S O O O O S O O S O O 33 33\n\n RHODE ISLAND\n\nKennedy P (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O ? O O O O 0 0\nReed J (D)................................ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n SOUTH CAROLINA\n\nClyburn J (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nGraham L (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S O 87 87\nInglis B (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nSanford M (R)............................. S S S O O O O O O O O O S O O 33 33\nSpence F (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S O S 87 87\nSpratt J (D).............................. S O O O S S O O O O O O O O O 20 20\n\n SOUTH DAKOTA\n\nJohnson T (D)............................. S S O O S S S O O O S O O O O 40 40\n\n TENNESSEE\n\nBryant E (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S ? S 100 93\nClement B (D)............................. S S S O O S S O O O S O O O O 40 40\nDuncan J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O 93 93\nFord H (D)................................ O O O O O O O S O ? O ? O ? O 8 7\nGordon B (D).............................. S S S O S S S S O O S O O O O 53 53\nHilleary V (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S 93 93\nQuillen J (R)............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nTanner J (D).............................. O S S S S S S O O S S O S O O 60 60\nWamp Z (R)................................ S S O S S S S S S S S S S O S 87 87\n\n TEXAS\n\nArcher B (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nArmey D (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nBarton J (R).............................. S ? S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 93\nBentsen K (D)............................. O O O O S S O S O O O O O O O 20 20\nBonilla H (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nBryant J (D).............................. O O O ? ? O ? O O O O O O O O 0 0\nChapman J (D)............................. S S S S S S S S O O S S O O O 67 67\nColeman R (D)............................. O O O O O O O ? O O S O O O O 7 7\nCombest L (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nde la Garza E (D)......................... O S O S S O S O O S S S O O O 47 47\nDeLay T (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nDoggett L (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\nEdwards C (D)............................. S S S S S S S S O S O S O O O 67 67\nFields J (R).............................. S S S S S S S ? ? ? S S S S S 100 80\nFrost M (D)............................... O O O S S O O S O O S O O O ? 29 27\nGeren P (D)............................... S S S S S O S S O S O S S O O 67 67\nGonzalez H (D)............................ O ? ? ? ? O O S O O S O O O O 18 13\nGreen G (D)............................... O O O O S O O ? ? ? O ? O O O 9 7\nHall R (D)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nJackson-Lee S (D)......................... O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O 7 7\nJohnson E (D)............................. O O O O O O O S O O O O O O O 7 7\nJohnson S (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nLaughlin G (R)............................ S S S ? S S S S O S S S S S S 93 87\nOrtiz S (D)............................... O ? S S S S S S O S S S S O S 79 73\nSmith L (R)............................... S S S S S S S S ? ? S S S S S 100 87\nStenholm C (D)............................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S O O 80 80\nStockman S (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S ? S S S S 100 93\nTejeda F (D).............................. O S S S S S S S O S S S S O ? 79 73\nThornberry W (R).......................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nWilson D (D).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S O O S S 80 80\n\n UTAH\n\nHansen J (R).............................. S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nOrton B (D)............................... S S S S S S S S O S S O O O S 73 73\nWaldholtz E (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\n\n VERMONT\n\nSanders B (I)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0\n\n VIRGINIA\n\nBateman H (R)............................. S S O S S S S S O S S S ? S S 86 80\n\n[[Page E1951]]\n\nBliley T (R).............................. S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nBoucher R (D)............................. O O O O O O O S O S O O O O O 13 13\nDavis T (R)............................... S S O O S S O S O S S S S O O 60 60\nGoodlatte R (R)........................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S O O 87 87\nMoran J (D)............................... O O O O O O O O O ? O O O O O 0 0\nPayne L (D)............................... S S O S S S S O O S O S O O O 53 53\nPickett O (D)............................. S S ? S S S S S O S S S S S O 86 80\nScott R (D)............................... O O O O S O O O O O O O O O O 7 7\nSisisky N (D)............................. S S S S S S S S O S ? S S ? O 85 73\nWolf F (R)................................ S S O O S S O S O S S O S O O 53 53\n\n WASHINGTON\n\nDicks N (D)............................... O O S O O S O O O O S O O O O 20 20\nDunn J (R)................................ S S S S S S S S O S S S S S S 93 93\nHastings R (R)............................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nMcDermott J (D)........................... O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O 7 7\nMetcalf J (R)............................. S S S S S S O S S S S S S S S 93 93\nNethercutt G (R).......................... S S O O S S S S O S S S S S S 80 80\nSmith L (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nTate R (R)................................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nWhite R (R)............................... S S S S S S S S S S S O S O O 80 80\n\n WEST VIRGINIA\n\nMollohan A (D)............................ O O S O S S O S O S S S O O S 53 53\nRahall N (D).............................. O O O O O O O S O O S S O O O 20 20\nWise B (D)................................ O O O O O O O S O O S O O O O 13 13\n\n WISCONSIN\n\nBarrett T (D)............................. O O O O O O O O O O O O O ? O 0 0\nGunderson S (R)........................... S S O S S S S S O S S S S S O 80 80\nKleczka G (D)............................. S O S O O O ? O O O O O O O O 14 13\nKlug S (R)................................ S S O O O S O O S S O O S S O 47 47\nNeumann M (R)............................. S S S S S S S S S ? S S S ? S 100 87\nObey D (D)................................ O O O O S S O O O O S O O S O 27 27\nPetri T (R)............................... S S O S S S S S S S O S S O S 80 80\nRoth T (R)................................ S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 100 100\nSensenbrenner F (R)....................... S S O S S S S S\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n TRIBUTE TO HISPANIC BUSINESS WEEK\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in acknowledgment of the\nupcoming Hispanic Business Week in New Jersey.\n Mr. Speaker, America is a hardworking society. We are a society built\non the principles of growth for the individual, as well as advancement\nof our community as a whole. Within this context, we can see the vital\nimportance for activists, community builders, and skilled\nprofessionals. This, Mr. Speaker, is what the New Jersey Hispanic\nChamber promotes.\n Mr. Speaker, in an era with significant economy shifts, the statewide\nHispanic Chamber of Commerce has led our community in the effort to\neducate the Hispanic Business Community and its consumers. They have\nsought to encourage and support the entrepreneurs, the individuals, and\nthe community as a whole. Through their education, our community has\nthe opportunity to grow and develop into a better community.\n This year, Mr. Speaker, the statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce\nwill sponsor Hispanic Business Week from October 21 to October 26. I am\ngrateful to be invited to their sixth annual convention and exhibition\nduring this historical week. Today, in acknowledgment and appreciation\nfor their great efforts, I rise to recognize Hispanic Business Week--a\nstep toward the future."], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1945", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO DAUGHTERS OF MIRIAM CENTER", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "TRIBUTETO", "E1945", "E1945", "[{\"name\": \"William J. Martini\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. E1945", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1945]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO DAUGHTERS OF MIRIAM CENTER\n\n ______\n\n HON. WILLIAM J. MARTINI\n\n of new jersey\n\n in the house of representatives\n\n Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to The\nDaughters of Miriam Center, a nonprofit geriatric and rehabilitation\ncenter, which will be celebrating 75 years of excellence, with the\nopening of the Gallen Institute for Subacute Care on October 27, 1996.\n Mr. Speaker; as you know, one of America's greatest assets is the\nwisdom of our seniors. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once\nsaid, ``Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it\nmerely because it comes late.'' The Daughters of Miriam Center realizes\nthe same sentiments that Justice Frankfurter once espoused. The 13 acre\nDaughters of Miriam Center campus consists of 340 beds with various\nservices available to over 700 elderly persons.\n Mr. Speaker, the Daughters of Miriam Center was founded in 1921 by\nNathan Bennet, a former Paterson mayor. It served as a shelter for\nelderly persons and orphaned children. Today, the Daughters of Miriam\nCenter is acknowledged as one of the leading facilities in the Nation\nfor the care of the elderly. It offers a nursing facility, subacute\nunit, the Gallen Institute for Subacute Care, sheltered workshop,\nmedical day care, program for the elderly with outpatient alzheimer\ndisease unit, two apartment buildings which offer congregate services,\nand the B.I. Cohen Family Building.\n Mr. Speaker; on behalf of my colleagues in Congress, I wish the\nDaughters of Miriam Center success in the opening of the new Gallen\nInstitute and another 75 years of continued success.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH-FrontMatter", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "House of Representatives", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "FRONTMATTER", "H12303", "H12303", null, null, "142 Cong. Rec. H12303", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12303]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S\n\nVol. 142\n\nWASHINGTON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1996\n\nNo. 143\n\nHouse of Representatives\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12303-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ENROLLEDSIGNED", "H12303", "H12304", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"193\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"194\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"632\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1087\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1281\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1776\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1874\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3155\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3219\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3249\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3378\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3452\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3568\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3632\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3864\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3910\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4036\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4083\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4137\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4194\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4283\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. H12303", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Pages H12303-H12304]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT\n\n Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that\nthat committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House\nof the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker pro\ntempore [Mrs. Morella]:\n\n On October 9, 1996:\n H.R. 632. An act to enhance fairness in compensating owners\n of patents used by the United States.\n H.R. 1087. An act for the relief of Nguyen Quy An.\n H.R. 1281. An act to express the sense of the Congress that\n United States Government agencies in possession of records\n about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war\n crimes should make these records public.\n H.R. 1776. An act to establish United States commemorative\n coin programs, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 1874. An act to modify the boundaries of the Talladega\n National Forest, Alabama.\n H.R. 3155. An act to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act\n by designating the Wekiva River, Seminole Creek, and Rock\n Springs Run in the State of Florida for study and potential\n addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.\n H.R. 3249. An act to authorize appropriations for a mining\n institute or institutes to develop domestic technological\n capabilities for the recovery of minerals from the Nation's\n seabed, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 3378. An act to amend the Indian Health Care\n Improvement Act to extend the demonstration program for\n direct billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and other third party\n payors.\n H.R. 3568. An act to designate 51.7 miles of the Clarion\n River, located in Pennsylvania, as a component of the\n National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.\n H.R. 3632. An act to amend title XIX of the Social Security\n Act to repeal the requirement for annual resident review for\n nursing facilities under the Medicaid program and to require\n resident reviews for mentally ill or mentally retarded\n residents when there is a significant change in physical or\n mental condition.\n H.R. 3864. An act to amend laws authorizing auditing,\n reporting, and other functions by the General Accounting\n Office.\n H.R. 3910. An act to provide emergency drought relief to\n the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the Canadian River\n Municipal Water Authority, Texas, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 4036. An act making certain provisions with respect to\n internationally recognized human rights, refugees, and\n foreign relations.\n H.R. 4083. An act to extend certain programs under the\n Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30,\n 1997.\n H.R. 4137. An act to combat drug-facilitated crimes of\n violence, including sexual assaults.\n H.R. 4194. An act to reauthorize alternative means of\n dispute resolution in the Federal administrative process, and\n for other purposes.\n H.J. Res. 193. Joint resolution granting the consent of\n Congress to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.\n H.J. Res. 194. Joint resolution granting the consent of the\n Congress to amendments made by Maryland, Virginia, and the\n District of Columbia to the Washington Metropolitan Area\n Transit Regulation Compact.\n On October 11, 1996:\n H.R. 3219. An act to provide Federal assistance for Indian\n tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of tribal self-\n governance, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 3452. An act to make certain laws applicable to the\n Executive Office of the President, and for other purposes.\n_______________________________________________________________________\n N O T I C E\n\n Effective January 1, 1997, the subscription price of the\n Congressional Record will be $295 per year, or $150 for 6 months.\n Individual issues may be purchased for $2.50 per copy. The cost for\n the microfiche edition will be $141 per year; single copies will\n remain $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon\n the cost of printing and distribution.\n\n MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Public Printer.\n_______________________________________________________________________\n\n[[Page H12304]]\n\n H.R. 4283. An act to provide for ballast water management\n to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous\n species into the waters of the United States, and for other\n purposes.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12303", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "RESIGNATION FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H12303", "H12303", null, null, "142 Cong. Rec. H12303", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12303]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[[Page H12303]]\n\n RESIGNATION FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\n\n Mr. WILSON submitted the following resignation from the House of\nRepresentatives:\n\n Congress of the United States,\n\n House of Representatives,\n\n Washington, DC, October 8, 1996.\n Hon. George W. Bush,\n Governor of The State of Texas, State Capitol, Austin, Texas.\n\n Re Letter of resignation, Texas Congressional District No. 2.\n\n Dear Governor Bush: It has been my honor, and privilege, to\n serve my constituents in Texas for almost 40 years; four in\n the United States Navy; twelve in the Texas Legislature and\n the remainder in the U.S. House of Representatives. I have\n tried to give the very best I had to offer for my\n constituents, the State of Texas and my Country. If there\n were an opportunity to turn the clock back and start over, I\n would follow the same course. At this point of anyone's\n career, if he/she can look back and say, ``It was good.'',\n the ultimate fulfillment has been achieved. I can truthfully\n say, it was good.\n The book has closed on the 104th Congress. With that\n closure, I respectfully take my leave effective at the\n expiration of October 8, 1996.\n Thank you for your kind understanding of my resignation and\n for the many courtesies you have extended to me.\n Sincerely,\n Charles Wilson.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12304-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H12304", "H12304", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"193\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"194\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"632\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1087\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1281\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1776\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1874\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3155\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3219\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3249\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3378\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3452\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3539\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3568\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3632\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3723\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3854\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3910\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4036\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4083\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4137\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4194\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4283\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. H12304", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12304]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT AFTER SINE DIE\n ADJOURNMENT\n\n Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Oversight reported that that\ncommittee did on the following dates present to the President, for his\napproval, bills and joint resolutions of the House of the following\ntitles:\n\n On October 4, 1996:\n H.R. 3539. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to\n reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration,\n and for other purposes.\n H.R. 3723. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to\n protect proprietary economic information, and for other\n purposes.\n On October 10, 1996:\n H.R. 632. An act to enhance fairness in compensating owners\n of patents used by the United States.\n H.R. 1087. An act for the relief of Nguyen Quy An.\n H.R. 1281. An act to express the sense of Congress that\n United States Government agencies in possession of records\n about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war\n crimes should make these records public.\n H.R. 1776. An act to establish United States commemorative\n coin programs, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 1874. An act to modify the boundaries of the Talladega\n National Forest, Alabama.\n H.R. 3155. An act to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act\n by designating the Wekiva River, Seminole Creek, and Rock\n Springs Run in the State of Florida for study and potential\n addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.\n H.R. 3249. An act to authorize appropriations for a mining\n institute or institutes to develop domestic technological\n capabilities for the recovery of minerals from the Nation's\n seabed, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 3378. An act to amend the Indian Health Care\n Improvement Act to extend the demonstration program for\n direct billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and other third party\n payors.\n H.R. 3568. An act to designate 51.7 miles of the Clarion\n River, located in Pennsylvania, as a component of the\n National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.\n H.R. 3632. An act to amend title XIX of the Social Security\n Act to repeal the requirements for annual resident review for\n nursing facilities under the Medicaid program and to require\n resident reviews for mentally ill or mentally retarded\n residents when there is a significant change in physical or\n mental condition.\n H.R. 3854. An act to amend laws authorizing auditing,\n reporting, and other functions by the General Accounting\n Office.\n H.R. 3910. An act to provide emergency drought relief to\n the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the Canadian River\n Municipal Water Authority, Texas, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 4036. An act making certain provisions with respect to\n internationally recognized human rights, refugees, and\n foreign relations.\n H.R. 4083. An act to extend certain programs under the\n Energy Policy and Conservation Act through September 30,\n 1997.\n H.R. 4137. An act to combat drug-facilitated crimes of\n violence, including sexual assaults.\n H.R. 4194. An act to reauthorize alternative means of\n dispute resolution in the Federal administrative process, and\n for other purposes.\n H.J. Res. 193. Joint resolution granting the consent of\n Congress to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.\n H.J. Res. 194. Joint resolution granting the consent of the\n Congress to amendments made by Maryland, Virginia, and the\n District of Columbia to the Washington Metropolitan Area\n Transit Regulation Compact.\n On October 18, 1996:\n H.R. 3219. An act to provide Federal assistance for Indian\n Tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of tribal self-\n governance, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 3452. An act to make certain laws applicable to the\n Executive Office of the President, and for other purposes.\n H.R. 4283. An act to provide for ballast water management\n to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous\n species into the waters of the United States, and for other\n purposes.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12304-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "HPUBCOMMREPORT", "H12304", "H12304", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2041\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. H12304", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12304]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS\n\n Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to\nthe Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as\nfollows:\n\n[Pursuant to the order of the House on September 28, 1996 the following\n report was filed on October 11, 1996:]\n\n Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 2041. A\n bill to amend the Organic Act of Guam to provide restitution\n to the people of Guam who suffered atrocities such as\n personal injury, forced labor, forced marches, internment,\n and death during the occupation of Guam in World War II, and\n for other purposes, with an amendment (Rept. 104-867 Pt. 1).\n Ordered to be printed.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12304-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SUBSEQUENT ACTION ON BILLS INITIALLY REFERRED UNDER TIME LIMITATIONS", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H12304", "H12304", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2041\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. H12304", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12304]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SUBSEQUENT ACTION ON BILLS INITIALLY REFERRED UNDER TIME LIMITATIONS\n\n Under clause 5 of rule X, the following actions were taken by the\nSpeaker:\n\n [The following action occurred on October 11, 1996]\n\n H.R. 2041. Referral to the Committee on International\n Relations extended for a period ending not later than October\n 11, 1996. Referral to the Committee on the Judiciary extended\n for a period ending not later than October 31, 1996.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12304-5", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEE", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H12304", "H12304", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2041\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. H12304", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12304]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEE\n\n Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the\nSpeaker:\n\n [The following action occurred on October 11, 1996]\n\n H.R. 2041. The Committee on International Relations\n discharged from further consideration."], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgH12304", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ENROLLEDSIGNED", "H12304", "H12304", null, "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"342\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1004\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1194\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1649\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1887\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2078\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2183\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2197\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2198\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. H12304", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[House]\n[Page H12304]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED AFTER SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT\n\n The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella) announced her signature to\nenrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles:\n\n S. 342. An act to establish the Cache La Poudre River\n Corridor.\n S. 1004. An act to authorize appropriations for the United\n States Coast Guard, and for other purposes.\n S. 1194. An act to promote the research, identification,\n assessment, and exploration of marine mineral resources, and\n for other purposes.\n S. 1649. An act to extend contracts between the Bureau of\n Reclamation and irrigation districts in Kansas and Nebraska,\n and for other purposes.\n S. 1887. An act to make improvements in the operation and\n administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.\n S. 2078. An act to authorize the sale of excess Department\n of Defense aircraft to facilitate the suppression of\n wildfire.\n S. 2183. An act to make technical corrections to the\n Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation\n Act of 1996.\n S. 2197. An act to extend the authorized period of stay\n within the United States for certain nurses.\n S. 2198. An act to provide for the Advisory Commission on\n Intergovernmental Relations to continue in existence, and for\n other purposes.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS-FrontMatter-6", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "Senate", "SENATE", "SENATE", "FRONTMATTER", "S12411", "S12411", null, null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12411", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12411]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n S E N A T E\n\nVol. 142\n\nWASHINGTON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1996\n\nNo. 143\n\nSenate\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12411", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "FOLLOWING UP ON THE HALPERIN NOMINATION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12411", "S12418", "[{\"name\": \"John McCain\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"391\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2216\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"6588\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12411", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12411-S12418]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[[Page S12411]]\n\n FOLLOWING UP ON THE HALPERIN NOMINATION\n\n Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in 1993, the Senate Armed Services\nCommittee conducted an extensive review of the nomination of Morton\nHalperin to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and\nPeacekeeping. The committee held an open hearing on November 19, 1993,\nwhere Mr. Halperin appeared to answer questions regarding his\nqualifications, background, and activities. Subsequently, however, his\nnomination was withdrawn by the President.\n At that hearing, Mr. Halperin directly refuted certain information\nprovided to the committee by Mr. Frank McNamara regarding Mr.\nHalperin's nomination. Inasmuch as Mr. McNamara was not present at the\nhearing and did not have an opportunity to testify before the\ncommittee, he was unable to defend his position regarding the\nnomination.\n Mr. President, I therefore ask that the following statement of Mr.\nMcNamara, fully setting forth his views on Mr. Halperin's nomination,\nbe inserted in the Record at this point for the information of\nSenators.\n The statement follows:\n\n Statement of Francis J. McNamara on the Nomination of Morton H.\n Halperin To Be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and\n Peacekeeping\n\n The following is offered in opposition to the confirmation\n of Morton H. Halperin as Assistant Secretary of Defense for\n Democracy and Peacekeeping.\n For some 25 years, as an employee of the Department of\n Defense and the National Security Council as well as in\n various private sector posts, he has violated security\n regulations and/or consistently attacked and strongly opposed\n generally accepted security practices, in addition to\n demonstrating extremely poor judgment about what constitutes\n sensitive security information.\n On July 5, 1996, upon entering the employ of the Defense\n Department, Mr. Halperin signed an affidavit which said:\n ``I agree to return all classified material upon\n termination of employment in the Office of the Secretary of\n Defense.''\n On September 19, 1969, terminating his employment with the\n National Security Council, Mr. Halperin signed another\n affidavit:\n ``I do not now have in my possession or custody or control\n any document or other things containing or incorporating\n information affecting the national defense, or other security\n information material classified Top secret, Secret or\n Classified to which I obtained access [during my\n employment].''\n Did Halperin live up to his word?\n Defending a presidential authority vital to the national\n security against a lawsuit brought by Halperin, the Carter\n Administration on May 24, 1978 filed a brief with the Court\n of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in which it said that\n Halperin took classified documents with him when he left the\n Defense Department and so that--\n ``Dr. Halperin managed to cart off boxes of highly\n classified material without the National Security Council's\n permission or knowledge when he left the NSC.''\n In addition to this double violation of his word and\n security regulations, Halperin was deceptive in other ways as\n well, according to the 1978 court brief. When Halperin was\n with the NSC, Henry Kissinger, the President's national\n security adviser, ``specifically instructed'' Halperin not to\n talk to journalists, but ``contrary to those instructions Dr.\n Halperin talked repeatedly with journalists.''\n Also: Halperin told Kissinger in a September 1969 telephone\n conversation, ``I haven't talked to the press . . . since\n May,'' but the record revealed he ``received a number of\n calls from, conversed with and met with a variety of\n journalists.''\n A wiretap had been placed on Halperin's home phone because\n he was the prime suspect in the leak of the secret US bombing\n of Cambodia to New York Times reporter William Beecher. That\n tap revealed the following about Halperin's conversations on\n his home phone: ``revelations on the North Vietnamese\n position . . . differing internal recommendations of the\n Secretaries of State and Defense and the Attorney General as\n to Cambodia . . . his plan to meet with representatives of a\n German news magazine about the National Security Council . .\n . and a planned meeting with a representative of the Soviet\n Union's Pravda.''\n Press accounts of Halperin's suit predating the brief had\n reported affidavits revealing John Erlichman saying that\n Kissinger had described Halperin ``as being singularly\n untrustworthy. Defects in his philosophy and character were\n generally described (by Kissinger).'' [Washington Post, March\n 12, 1976]; and that two weeks after Halperin left the\n National Security Council, FBI Director Hoover reported to\n the White House that he has been heard saying on his\n telephone that ``he was to meet with the foreign editor of\n Pravda'' [W.P. 3/21/76].\n Also reported by the same newspaper: a Kissinger affidavit\n said Halperin's FBI security file revealed he had failed to\n ``report a visit to Greece, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union''\n on a passport application; that in 1965 he had received the\n Communist magazine, ``World Marxist Review/Problems of Peace\n and Socialism'', and that Halperin recalled Kissinger had cut\n off his access to\n_______________________________________________________________________\n N O T I C E\n\n Effective January 1, 1997, the subscription price of the\n Congressional Record will be $295 per year, or $150 for 6 months.\n Individual issues may be purchased for $2.50 per copy. The cost for\n the microfiche edition will be $141 per year; single copies will\n remain $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon\n the cost of printing and distribution.\n\n MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Public Printer.\n_______________________________________________________________________\n\n[[Page S12412]]\n\n ``more sensitive information regarding national security\n matters'' because of high-level Administration figures'\n suspicions about his political views. (3/28/76)\n Not only the Carter Administration brief, but various news\n accounts reported that Kissinger had hired Halperin for his\n NSC position over the objections of FBI Director Hoover, the\n Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senator Goldwater,\n White House aide Haldeman, and the security officer of the\n NSC. Kissinger himself said in Salzburg, Austria, in June\n 1974 that he had hired Halperin for the NSC ``over the strong\n objections of all my associates.''\n A J. Edgar Hoover file memo revealed that Kissinger had\n called him May 9, 1969, the day the Times story appeared, to\n complain that the Beecher story was ``extraordinarily\n damaging and uses secret information.'' The Carter\n Administration brief noted that the District Court in\n Washington had said ``There was justifiably grave concern in\n 1969 over the leaking of confidential foreign policy\n information.'' President Nixon later deposed that Prince\n Sihanouk of Cambodia had agreed to the bombing as long as\n it was secret, but for internal political reasons could no\n longer do so once it became known. A halt to the bombing\n was thus forced, with the result that the enemy was\n guaranteed a safe haven from which he could attack\n American troops and then escape to safety. The President\n deposed that the leak was ``directly responsible for the\n deaths of thousands of Americans.''\n A September 1969 memo from FBI Director Hoover to Attorney\n General John Mitchell said Kissinger wanted all the wiretaps\n he had requested in trying to identify the source of the leak\n discontinued except for those on Halperin.\n William C. Sullivan, Assistant FBI Director for\n Intelligence, said in a July 8, 1969 memo to Director Hoover:\n ``As we know, Halperin cannot be trusted. We have learned\n enough already from the early coverage of him to conclude\n this.''\n Another reason for rejecting Halperin's nomination is that\n he has revealed a sick, unhealthy animus and hostility toward\n the U.S. Intelligence Community and the individual agencies\n composing it, despite their vital relationship to the\n security of the Nation.\n Appearing on the Ben Wattenberg PBS-TV program, ``In Search\n of the Real America,'' on June 15, 1978, he contradicted\n Wattenberg when Wattenberg said the CIA was a defender of\n American freedoms.\n ``No,'' Halperin replied, ``they've been a subverter of\n everybody else's freedom.''\n He has also accused CIA officers of ``promoting fascism\n around the world.''\n What does he think of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?\n ``Causing violence in American cities has been an on-going\n FBI program,'' a pamphlet he published on the Bureau said.\n To Halperin it is ``an open question'' whether the CIA and\n other agencies in the Intelligence Community would turn to\n assassinating American citizens.\n Halperin has adopted unbelievably ridiculous positions--as\n when he told Wattenberg that he would oppose CIA use of\n covert action, even if it were to stop Libyan leader Quadaffi\n from sneaking nuclear weapons into New York harbor!\n In 1974, referring to the early `70s period of the Vietnam\n War, he actually wrote questioning ``the need for the kind\n of reconnaissance which involved an intrusion into North\n Vietnamese air space''!\n He knows as little about the law as he does about war. In\n September of 1976, he attacked the Department of Justice for\n acting on the belief that when a foreign power is involved,\n there is a national security exemption to the Fourth\n Amendment. He wrote:\n ``No court in the United States has ever seriously\n considered the possibility that it exists.'' (``First\n Principles,'' 9/76)\n 100% wrong! It is difficult to conceive of a more erroneous\n statement. Not only had a number of District Courts\n ``seriously considered'' its existence at the time, but some\n Appeals Courts had as well, and most of the decisions had\n upheld the concept.\\1\\\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \\1\\ Footnotes at end of articles.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n The Carter Administration court brief noted ``poor\n judgment'' on Halperin's part and ``disquieting'' points in\n his conduct. It is my view that he has continued to exhibit\n these traits on a considerable number of occasions,\n particularly those treated at some length in the attached\n ``Partial Record''--the cases of Philip Agee, the CIA\n Defector; David Truong, the Communist Vietnamese espionage\n agent, and the leak of the so-called ``Pentagon Papers.''\n For these and other reasons, I believe his confirmation\n would constitute a security risk to the United States not\n only because of his actions and views concerning what\n constitutes sensitive security information, but also because\n it would deal a blow to the morale of the Nation's military/\n security/intelligence services with related adverse\n performance of functions vital to the national security.\n\n further statement of francis j. mcnamara re morton halperin\n\n Concerned about the nomination of Morton Halperin to serve\n as an assistant secretary of defense, friends who knew I had\n closely studied the assault on the Intelligence Community\n that had marked the decade of the mid-seventies to the mid-\n eighties and had testified and written about it and also\n about Halperin's role in it,\\2\\ suggested that I assist the\n effort of the Center for Security Policy, directed by Frank\n Gaffney, Jr., to defeat the nomination, and also that I\n prepare a personal statement opposing it.\n I did both. Senator Thurmond distributed copies of my\n statement to members of the Armed Services Committee and also\n to all members of the Senate.\n During the November 19, 1993 hearing by the committee on\n his nomination, in response to a question by Senator McCain,\n Halperin testified:\n ``Senator McCain, those comments appear to be identical\n with a set of allegations made in a document which Senator\n Thurmond distributed to members of the committee. That is a\n scurrilous, outrageous attack on me, full of false\n statements, innuendoes, and misleading assertions. I will\n give you just two examples. . . .''\n He then branded what I had written about his association\n with a group named PEPIC ``an outright lie and a scandalous\n attack,'' implied that what my statement said about a listing\n of CIA memoirs by former Agency employees fell into the same\n category, and asked for permission to insert in the hearing\n record ``a detailed response'' to my statement. Senator\n Levin, presiding at the time, granted his request.\n Having recently undergone surgery, I did not attend the\n hearing. After I had obtained a hearing transcript and read\n his words, I wrote to the committee on December 15:\n ``I flatly deny and deeply resent Halperin's charges about\n my statement and request that I be granted an opportunity to\n appear before the committee to respond to them.\n In reply, I was informed that committee rules barred my\n appearance because, during the hearing, nothing had been said\n on the record authorizing it.\n When, on April 12, 1994 I received a copy of the printed\n hearing I learned that in his alleged ``detailed response''\n to my statement submitted for the record since I had last\n seen a transcript, Halperin had added a few choice epithets\n describing it: ``inaccurate . . . distorts facts . . .\n patently untrue . . . misrepresents . . . absurd . . . false\n . . . an outright lie'' [again] (printed record, pages 181,\n 182).\n In the almost 50 years I have been writing, lecturing,\n testifying and carrying out various administrative duties in\n the security and intelligence fields, particularly as they\n relate to Communism, no one has ever before accused me of\n lying and making false and misleading statements, except\n Radio Moscow and Izvestia. As a matter of fact, the Senate\n Internal Security subcommittee said some twenty years ago:\n ``Mr. McNamara commands a national reputation as a careful\n scholar and researcher in matters relating to communism,\n extremist activities in general, and internal security.''\n Despite this and similar other statements I could quote,\n the summary of major developments in the Halperin case\n presented June 23 on the Senate floor by the chairman of the\n Armed Services Committee appeared to support Halperin 100%\n and thus, like Halperin's words, cast doubt on my integrity\n and veracity. It was true, the Chairman said, that the\n Halperin nomination was controversial, but controversy, he\n emphasized, ``should not stand as a judgment on the\n individual's qualifications or on the merits of the specific\n allegations that were brought to the attention of the\n committee. . . . the fact that an allegation has been made\n should not stand as a judgment that the allegation is\n valid. . . . If credible allegations are presented to the\n committee, we will pursue them.''\n These, of course, are not more than basic truths, but in\n the context in which they were spoken they had a definite\n pro-Halperin slant that belittled his critics and tended to\n disparage all charges made against him, including mine.\n Halperin, the chairman continued, ``has an impressive\n record . . . he has taught and lectured widely on a variety\n of subjects related to the national security'' and his\n nomination ``has received the support of a number of\n distinguished Americans, including a bipartisan array of\n former government officials.'' The issues raised about his\n nomination ``were explored in detail'' at his hearing, during\n which Halperin ``demonstrated dignity, seriousness of\n purpose, and broad understanding of national security\n issues--and patience.'' He ``directly addressed a variety of\n allegations concerning his fitness for office'' and ``I was\n impressed by the care and attention he gave to each question\n . . . none of the allegations of improprieties were\n substantiated in the course of the standard report on the\n nominee by the FBI, in other investigations by the executive\n branch, or in any evidence submitted to the Armed Services\n Committee. I would like to quote directly from his testimony\n because it deals with a number of charges that were reported\n in the news media and that I think he dealt with at the\n hearing.''\n The chairman then quoted eight paragraphs of Halperin's\n testimony in which Halperin summarized in his own words [very\n convenient] as many allegations about his record and said of\n each one, ``That is false.''\n Whether or not Halperin summarized the eight accusations\n accurately and his ``false'' claim about them is true, the\n fact is that Halperin more than once testified falsely about\n my statement in his hearing. There is not a single false\n statement, misleading assertion, innuendo, outrageous lie or\n any other kind of lie in my statement. Under the general\n heading, ``Halperin and Philip Agee,'' it stated:\n\n[[Page S12413]]\n\n ``Following is at least part of the public record of Morton\n Halperin's actions relative to CounterSpy, the Covert Action\n Information Bulletin and Philip Agee:\n It continued with the following description of the first of\n a series of actions noted, the one Halperin told Senator\n McCain was ``an outright lie:''\n ``CounterSpy's publisher, the Organizing Committee for a\n Fifth Estate (OC-5), according to its 1975 annual report,\n `had been instrumental in organizing several other\n organizations' that year, one of which was `The Public\n Education Project on the Intelligence Community (PEPIC) . . .\n a year-long effort.'\n ``Morton Halperin, the report continued, was a member of\n PEPIC's speakers bureau, all of whose members `will be\n donating their time, energy and fees to PEPIC to ensure its\n survival.' ''\n ``The Senate Internal Security subcommittee, in its 1977\n annual report, identified PEPIC as one of `several fronts'\n set up by Agee's OC-5 to accomplish its objective of finding\n `those individuals with research or organizing abilities to\n join the Counter-Spy Team'.''\n What is the public record basis for the above three\n paragraphs?\n The Winter 1976 issue of CounterSpy, which identified\n itself as ``The Quarterly Journal of the Organizing Committee\n for a Fifth Estate,'' published an item captioned ``Fifth\n Estate Annual Report: 1975 . . . .'' (pages 62, 63), the\n fifth subsection of which was entitled ``Organizing.'' The\n second paragraph of this subsection read as the follows:\n ``The Organizing Committee has also been instrumental in\n organizing several other organizations during 1975. Most of\n these organizations are independent of the Fifth Estate and\n the Organizing Committee. Others are local research and\n action groups, which operate autonomously but may eventually\n join the national umbrella of the Fifth Estate.''\n This was followed by the names of the four groups the Fifth\n Estate had been ``instrumental in organizing'' in 1975, with\n a brief description of each one. The second organization\n listed was--\n ``The Public Education Project on the Intelligence\n Community (PEPIC) is a year-long effort, sponsored by the\n Youth Project, Inc. of Washington, D.C., designed to create\n informed public discussion on intelligence issues. . . . All\n speakers participating in this project will be donating their\n time, energy and fees to PEPIC to ensure its survival.\n Speakers include some of the foremost experts on the\n intelligence community:''\n It then listed the names of the twenty members of PEPIC's\n speakers bureau, giving brief identifying date for each. The\n sixth read:\n ``Morton Halperin: Director, ACLU Project on National\n Security and Civil Liberties. Co-editor of `The Abuses of the\n Intelligence Agencies.'' Former Assistant Deputy Director\n (sic) of Defense.''\n The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee issued a 55-page\n ``Annual Report For The Fiscal Year Ending February 28,\n 1977'' (Reported No. 95-20, 95th Congress, 1st Session),\n which contained a two-page section, ``Organizing Committee\n For A Fifth Estate'' (pages 43, 44) in which it identified\n Counter Spy as OC-5's ``official publication.'' Under a\n subhead, ``Objectives of OC-5,'' the Senate report said:\n ``As stated in its first annual report, dated January 1974,\n of the OC-5, its Counterspy campaign against the intelligence\n community of the United States was:\n ``Designed to locate, train and organize those citizens who\n have the courage and strength to dedicate their lives and\n their resources to changing the current direction of our\n government and nation. We are looking for those individuals\n with research or organizing abilities to join the Counter-Spy\n Team. Our hope is to weld counterspies into groups forming a\n nationwide alternative intelligence community--a Fifth\n Estate--serving as a force to focus a public effort towards\n altering the present course our government is now taking\n towards a technofascist society.'\n The Senate subcommittee report then commented:\n ``In an effort to accomplish the above-stated objectives,\n OC-5 operates through several fronts, such as: . . . and (5)\n Public Education on the Intelligence Community (sic).\n\n * * * * *\n\n ``In essence, the objectives of OC-5 are to discredit and\n render ineffective all American intelligence gathering\n operatiaons--domestic and foreign.''\n Thus, everything my statement said in the three paragraphs\n about Halperin and PEPIC is, as claimed, based on the public\n record. Yet, Halperin had the gall to grossly twist the facts\n in an effort to make it appear that I had lied in stating\n them.\n When Senator McCain, questioning Halperin, referred to my\n statement's above-quoted facts about the Halperin-PEPIC-\n CounterSpy ties, Halperin claimed:\n ``The sentence after the one you read about the Organizing\n Committee says most of these organizations are independent of\n the Fifth Estate and the Organizing Committee, and then it\n goes on to list independent organizations who they happen to\n think are worthy of drawing to people's attention, and one of\n them is this Public Education Project.\n ``The attempt in that document to suggest that the Public\n Education Project was an instrument of the Organizing\n Committee and that I worked for that and donated my money to\n them and that is why they listed my publication is an\n outright lie and a scandalous attack.\n ``It happens that that organization, which was totally\n independent of the Fifth Estate, was project of the Youth\n Project, as is indicated in the document which the people who\n wrote this for Senator Thurmond had. It was an independent\n organization. They asked if they could list my name as\n somebody who was available to speak. Along with many other\n people I did. I did not in fact end up speaking for them. I\n did not donate any money for that purpose, and the assertion\n that I supplied money that went to the Fifth Estate is an\n outrageous lie.''\n Fact: Halperin's testimony that Fifth Estate's annual\n report listed PEPIC as an ``independent'' organization is\n false, as a mere reading of its words demonstrates. It did\n say that ``most'' of the groups it had organized in 1975 were\n independent, but it clearly did not specify which were and\n which were not.\n The second paragraph of Halperin's just quoted testimony is\n all falsehood. I did not ``attempt . . . to suggest'' that\n PEPIC was an instrument of OC-5. I quoted a formal finding of\n a Senate subcommittee which stated that ``OC-5 operates\n through several fronts'' and specifically named PEPIC as one\n of them. I did not ``suggest'' that Halperin ``worked for''\n and ``donated'' money to PEPIC. I accurately stated that the\n Fifth Estate annual report listed him as a member of PEPIC's\n speakers bureau (which he admits in the next paragraph) and\n also reported that all its members would be ``donating their\n . . . fees to PEPIC.'' What reason was there to doubt the\n word of OC-5, PEPIC's creator, on this point?\n Where were the words in which I told, as he testified, ``an\n outright lie'' in a ``scandalous'' attack?\n Third paragraph: Halperin's claim that PEPIC was ``totally\n independent'' of the Fifth Estate and ``an independent\n organization'' is flatly contradicted by the report of the\n Senate subcommittee. Like most people, I choose to believe\n the Senate subcommittee on this point--and would do so\n whenever there were conflicting claims between it and\n Halperin. Obviously, the fact that PEPIC was ``sponsored\n by'' the Youth Project does not mean it was not, or could\n not be, a ``front'' for OC-5. I made no ``assertion'' that\n Halperin ``supplied money . . . to the Fifth Estate.''\n Again, who told an ``outrageous lie,'' Morton Halperin or\n I?\n Halperin next offered what he claimed was ``another\n example'' of an ``outright lie'' in my ``scandalous'' attack\n on him:\n ``one of the charges is that Organizing Notes listed Mr.\n Agee's book under `Memoirs by Former Government Employees.'\n There is in fact such a list. It lists the following books.''\n Halperin then named nine books and their authors,\n commenting that various of the authors are supporters and\n ``strong supporters'' of the agency, and added:\n ``and I am accused of supporting Agee because Agee's book\n was listed along with all those others in what was clearly a\n complete list of memoirs.''\n Again, Halperin is, at best, in careless errors and\n misstating the facts. The relevant part of my statement\n distributed by Senator Thurmond is as follows:\n ``In late 1978, Halperin's CPR published a Materials List\n to assist its members in their agit-prop work against\n American intelligence agencies. Agee's `Inside the Company'\n was included in it under the category `Memoirs by Former\n Employees' and his Covert Action Information Bulletin under\n `Sources of Information.' ''\n Obviously, contrary to his claim, the part of my statement\n about which Halperin was testifying did not even mention\n ``Organizing Notes.'' The so-called Campaign for Political\n Rights which Halperin chaired did, as he admits publish a 16-\n page Materials List dated ``12/78.'' It had numerous sections\n and subsections--``General Organizing Information'',\n ``Litigation'', ``U.S. Government and Foreign Intelligence\n Agencies'', ``FBI'', ``Local and State Police Spying and\n Harassment'', ``Surveillance of Women'',``Surveillance of\n Black Americans'', etc, etc.\n The two-page ``Central Intelligence Agency'' section was\n subdivided as follows: ``General'', ``Specific Countries or\n Regions'', ``CIA and Human Rights Violations Abroad,'' ``The\n CIA and Labor,'' ``CIA--Mind Control Testing,'' and,\n finally, ``Memoirs by Former Employees,'' which listed the\n works cited by Halperin, including Agee's ``Inside The\n Company: CIA Diary.''\n Completely false, however, is Halperin's testimony that the\n books in the ``Memoirs'' subsection ``was clearly a complete\n list of memoirs.'' His Materials List itself contradicts him\n on this point because in other subsections it mentions at\n least three other works that qualify for the Memoirs\n category, all published by December 1978 and all omitted from\n it: ``The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence'' by Victor\n Marchetti and John Marks; ``Decent Interval'' by Frank Snepp,\n and John Stockwell's ``In Search of Enemies.''\n In addition, there are other works that could be included:\n ``The Real CIA'' by Lyman Kirkpatrick; ``Street Man'' by E.\n C. ``Mike'' Ackerman; ``The Counter-insurgency Era'' by\n Douglas Blaufarb, and ``The Game of Nations'' by Miles\n Copeland.\n Completely phony, therefore, is Halperin's implication that\n he is absolved of any blame for including promoting Agee's\n book because it is a memoir and thus has to be included in a\n ``complete'' list of such works. The truth is\n\n[[Page S12414]]\n\n that the list was not comprehensive and any of the above-\n listed books could have substituted for Agee's, but\n Halperin's CPR chose to name Agee's book rather than any one\n of the others. Why?\n Interestingly, Halperin changed his story in submitting his\n written ``detailed response'' to my statement to the\n committee: He wrote:\n ``It is true, as the piece [McNamara's statement] claims,\n that CPR published a Materials List which included Agee's\n ``Inside the Company'' and the ``Covert Action Information\n Bulletin.'' The list also included books by . . . , all of\n whom present far different views of the CIA. CPR was simply\n providing a reference list of materials on intelligence\n organizations.''\n Now it is a mere ``reference list.'' What happened to his\n testimony's ``complete list of memoirs''? Could it be that he\n lied when he made that claim?\n Was Halperin and his CPR ``simply providing a reference\n list of materials on intelligence organizations'', or\n promoting something, when it noted that its Materials List\n ``differs from a bibliography in that all materials can be\n currently obtained from the organizations and individuals\n listed. Please request materials from the noted source'' and\n then, immediately after the title of Agee's book, listed the\n following source:\n ``(Penguin Books or Center for National Security\n Studies.)''\n So it turns out that Halperin's CNSS not only stocked and\n peddled Agee's book, but his CPR also publicized this fact\n through its Materials List!\n To the above-quoted claim about a simple ``reference list''\n in his written response submitted for the record to the Armed\n Services Committee, Halperin added:\n ``The piece goes on to say that `Organizing Notes'\n `promoted' `Counterspy' and the `Covert Action Information\n Bulletin.' As with the Materials List discussed above, the\n piece is misconstruing the presentation of reference\n information as endorsement.''\n But did I misconstrue the above presentation of mere\n ``reference information'' about Agee's book as endorsement by\n Halperin? Why else would Halperin stock and sell it, but not\n any other of the nine books on the list? And what about the\n following items in his CPR Materials List, not included in my\n original statement?\n 1. At the end of the Memoirs by Former Employees section we\n read:\n ``See . . . Newsletters--Counterspy, Covert Action\n Information Bulletin. . . .\n 2. In the Research section (p. 3) we also read:\n ``See . . . CIA--`Dirty Work' (article on `How to Spot a\n Spook')'' [`Dirty Work' was the short title for Agee's book,\n `Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe'].\n ``Newsletters: `Covert Action Information Bulletin' (How to\n Research and Expose CIA personnel).''\n 3. In the CIA ``Specific Countries or Regions'' section, we\n are again treated to:\n `` `Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe.' Philip Agee and\n Louis Wolf. Compilation of articles, a guide on `spotting a\n spook,' and a listing of 700 alleged CIA agents in Western\n Europe. 1978. $24.95. $10.00 discount if purchased from\n `Covert Action Information Bulletin' with a subscription\n order. (Lyle Stuart, Secaucus, NJ or CAIB.)''\n 4. In the Newsletters section, the CAIB is the second one\n recommended (p. 12). Its promotion takes this form:\n ``Covert Action Information Bulletin. Following in the\n footsteps of Counterspy, this periodical has included\n articles about CIT activities in Jamaica, research ideas, and\n CIA recruitment of foreign officers. Published bimonthly;\n $10.00 a year in U.S., $16.00 overseas. (CAIB)''\n 5. In this same section, the first-listed item is CAIB's\n predecessor and sister publication which, like it, relished\n exposing the identities and locations of CIA overseas\n personnel:\n ``Counterspy. Covered variety of issues including CIA in\n Jamaica, Chile, South America; CIA use of unions overseas and\n the League of Women Voter's Overseas Fund; Garden Plot\n (national emergency plan). Selected issues, $1.50 and xerox\n copies (cost) available. (Public Eye.)''\n 6. CounterSpy also turns up in two other sections of\n Halperin's CPR ``Materials List'', as the source for:\n `` `Jordan: A Case of CIA/Class Collaboration.' This\n booklet describes CIA involvement in Jordan. 1977; $1.00\n (Counterspy, Box 647, Washington, DC 20044.)''\n Under the SURVEILLANCE OF WOMEN subsection, we again find:\n ``See . . . Newsletters . . . Counterspy''\n Whatever you do, do not misconstrue any of the following\n above-quoted words and phrases as endorsement of CAIB or\n Counterspy, or as an indication that Halperin, boss of the\n CPR, was supporting Agee or his effort to expose CIA\n personnel:\n ``How to spot a spook--how to research and expose CIA\n personnel--a guide on `spotting a spook'--a listing of 700\n alleged CIA agents in Western Europe--CIA in Jamaica, Chile,\n South America--CIA involvement in Jordan.''\n Why shouldn't you believe any of the above could possibly\n be mistaken for support for Agee? Because, in his ``detailed\n response'' to ``the piece'', Morton Halperin told the SASC\n ``I never supported nor condoned his [Agee's] activities''\n and Halperin is the very embodiment of candor, openness and\n truth!\n\n halperin and bills to protect identities of u.s. intelligence agents\n\n Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981 as\n director of the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS),\n Halperin stated:\n ``We do not condone the practice of naming names and we\n fully understand Congress' desire to do what it can to\n provide meaningful protection to those intelligence agents\n serving abroad, often in situations of danger.''\n It sounded great--as though he and his CNSS cronies were\n all for the national effort to end the damaging and dangerous\n exposures of covert U.S. intelligence personnel and would\n support legislation to accomplish that purpose.\n Doubts about that existed, however, because of another\n statement Halperin, this time speaking for the ACLU, had made\n to the Senate Intelligence Committee a year earlier:\n ``I think a citizen has a right to impair and impede the\n functions of a Government agency, whether it is the Federal\n Trade Commission or the CIA. The fact that your intent is\n impair or impede does not make your activity a crime if it is\n otherwise legal.''\n Halperin placed no restrictions or limits on the devices\n used ``to impair and impede,'' leaving open the possibility\n that even the technique of impairing by deliberate exposure\n of covert intelligence personnel was any citizens ``right''\n in his view [a year later, the Supreme Court held that such\n exposures ``are clearly not protected by the Constitution'',\n i.e., they are not any citizens ``right''].\n Additionally, in testimony before the House Intelligence\n Committee in 1981, again representing the ACLU, Halperin had\n stated:\n ``I am not sure we would ever reach the point where we\n would support any legislation [to criminalize the deliberate\n exposure of agents].''\n Just where did the slippery-worded Halperin really stand on\n the issue?\n The only way to find out is to check his actual record, as\n revealed by his testimony pro or con various identities\n protection bills. Here it is:\n 1/30/80: House Intelligence Committee, ``Proposals to\n Criminalize the Unauthorized Disclosure of the Identities of\n Undercover United States Intelligence Officers and Agents.''\n Testified for the Center for National Security Studies, which\n he directed, in opposition to the proposals (p. 66, et\n sequitur).\n 3/27/80: House Intelligence Committee, ``H.R. 6588, The\n National Intelligence Act of 1980.'' Testifying for the CNSS,\n Halperin opposed the intelligence identities protection\n provisions of the proposed act (pp. 138-142).\n 6/25/80: Senate Intelligence Committee, ``Intelligence\n Identities Protection Legislation.'' Representing the ACLU,\n Halperin opposed the legislation (p. 88, et sequitur).\n 9/5/80: Senate Judiciary Committee, ``Intelligence\n Identities Protection Act, S. 2216.'' This time, again\n representing the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS),\n he opposed the bill (p. 98, et sequitur).\n 4/8/81: House Intelligence Committee, ``H.R. 4, The\n Intelligence Identities Protection Act.'' Back this time\n wearing his ACLU hat, he once more took a position against\n the proposed law (p. 73, et sequitur).\n 5/8/81: Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism,\n ``Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1981--S. 391.''\n Back in his CNSS of the ACLU cloak, he again took the\n ``anti'' position (p. 70, et sequitur).\n My statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services\n Committee said; ``Halperin campaigned hard against all bills\n introduced to criminalize exposures of the identities of U.S.\n intelligence personnel, though the Supreme Court had held (in\n its Agee passport decision) that such activities `are clearly\n not protected by the Constitution'.''\n Halperin branded my charge ``an outright lie'' in his\n written ``detailed response'' to my statement submitted to\n the committee (hearing, p. 182).\n But where was my lie? Can he produce evidence in any House\n or Senate hearing record that he ever supported any bill\n under consideration?\n Of course not. And why did he make no attempt to refute my\n charge that the CPR, which he chaired, coordinated the mass\n signing of letters to the House and Senate which urged the\n weakening of bills under consideration?\n As a member of AFIO, the Association of Former Intelligence\n Officers--whose members represent every intelligence agency\n of the U.S.--I was aware that in 1980 it had passed a\n resolution urging enactment of an identities protection bill\n and followed developments in this area closely. John Warner,\n former General Counsel of the CIA, was serving as legal\n adviser to AFIO in 1982 when Congress passed, and the\n President signed, the desired protection bill. Commenting on\n the March 18 Senate 90-6 vote for the bill, Warner wrote in\n Periscope, official AFIO newsletter:\n ``This vote is a significant achievement for those who\n support a strong and effective intelligence service. The\n American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for\n National Security Studies (CNSS) (read: Jerry Berman and\n Morton Halperin respectively) had great influence in\n proposing some weakening amendments which had been given\n approval by the House Intelligence Committee on HR-4 and the\n Senate Judiciary Committee on S-391. The bills as reported by\n these two committees were amended, however, after floor\n debate in the House and Senate, to the language supported by\n President\n\n[[Page S12415]]\n\n Reagan, CIA, the Department of Justice--and AFIO. (Jerry\n Berman of ACLU was quoted in the Washington Post after the\n Senate vote, as admitting `we [ACLU] took a bath.')\n ``While ACLU and CNSS apparently can influence some\n congressmen and certainly initially had their way in the\n House and Senate committees, the majority sentiment in both\n houses, when it came to a floor vote, demonstrated strong\n congressional support for CIA and the US intelligence\n effort.''\n Warner was thoroughly justified in pairing Berman and\n Halperin in his account. Berman, an ACLU attorney, served as\n counsel for its Project on National Security which Halperin\n directed. He also served as chief legislative counsel for the\n Center for National Security Studies which Halperin also\n directed and, over the years had worked hand-in-glove with\n Halperin on many issues involving intelligence and national\n security, opposition to enactment of an agents' identities\n protection bill being just one of them.\n On June 24, 1982, I attended a hearing of the Senate\n Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Berman was there,\n too. When the session ended, we spoke briefly in the hall\n outside the hearing room. Referring to President Reagan's\n signing the identities protection bill into law at CIA\n headquarters the day before, Berman said to me:\n ``It's incredible how Mort [Halperin] and I kept Congress\n from doing anything about it for six years.''\n The ``it'', of course, was the deliberate exposure of\n covert U.S. intelligence personnel by Agee, ``CounterSpy''\n and the ``Covert Action Information Bulletin''.\n That statement, coming from his close working associate for\n a period of years on such matters--combined with the bill\n hearings record cited above--reveals Halperin's true position\n on the question of ``naming names.'' According to Berman,\n they--he and Halperin--did not want Congress to do anything\n to stop the continuing exposure of American intelligence\n agents; they did not think they had a chance of succeeding in\n their efforts on the issue; yet, in an ``incredible''\n development, they had prevented any effective Congressional\n action for six full years! [Their intense lobbying,\n buttonholing, testifying and related actions were known to\n all interested in the matter].\n One thing is clear. Halperin lied when he accused me of\n lying about his opposition to intelligence agents identities\n protection bills.\n He also lied to Senator Levin on the issue in his Armed\n Services Committee testimony, according to Herbert\n Romerstein, now retired, who headed the USIA's Office to\n Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures and, before\n that, was a professional staff member of the House\n Intelligence Committee when Halperin testified before it on\n agent identity bills in 1980.\n Responding to a question by the Senator about his role in\n the House Intelligence Committee's action on an identities\n protection bill ``making it a crime to disclose the identity\n of covert intelligence agents,'' Halperin testified--\n ``That is right Senator. It was in two parts. There was a\n part relating to people like Philip Agee, who were former\n government officials, which we actively supported from the\n beginning, and there was a second provision which put the\n people who were naming names out of the business of naming\n names while protecting the right of legitimate journalists to\n report on intelligence matters.''\n Halperin ``was not telling the truth,'' Romerstein wrote in\n ``Human events'' shortly after Halperin's appearance, ``I was\n present during his testimony'' and in it he said ``any effort\n to cover individuals who have not had authorized access to\n classified information is inherently flawed . . . the\n Constitution does not permit the prosecution of those\n individuals.''\n The record bears out Romerstein's claim. Later in his\n testimony that same day, Halperin stated emphatically that\n once someone had gotten the name of an agent by some means\n other than official access ``the cat is out of the bag . . .\n there is no way constitutionally to deal with the problem.''\n It has been Halperin's consistent position that, while an\n Agee could be punished for revealing agents' identities he\n had learned by authorized access to classified information,\n such conduct by others who have learned identities by other\n means is completely protected by the Constitution and cannot\n be criminalized.\n How, then, could he have supported bills that took a\n contrary position, as the one eventually enacted did?\n And how could he, without lying, tell the Senate Armed\n Services Committee in his written reply to my charges that he\n ``worked hard . . . to formulate constitutional laws that\n imposed strict criminal penalties on those who would reveal\n undercover agents''?\n\n morton halperin: the non-chair, non-director, non-entity?\n\n Halperin has held important-sounding titles in the anti-\n security, anti-intelligence drive of the '70s and '80s. The\n ACLU, having given ``top priority'' in 1970 to a nationwide\n driven aimed at ``the dissolution of the Nation's vast\n surveillance network'' (its collective description of the\n CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, etc. and the security-intelligence\n elements of state and local police) that same year set up the\n Committee for Public Justice (CPJ) headed by the unrepentant\n ``ex''-Communist, Lillian Hellman who, when she died in 1984,\n left part of her $4 million estate for the establishment of a\n fund for Communist writers. Halperin served on the executive\n council, newsletter committee and wrote for the newsletter of\n the CPJ which had the FBI and Department of Justice as its\n targets.\n In early 1974, the ACLU Foundation, jointly with the Fund\n for Peace, organized the so-called Center for National\n Security Studies (CNSS) to serve as the research and\n documentation element of the drive. Halperin soon became CNSS\n director and held that post until he resigned in late 1992,\n remaining as Chair of its Advisory Committee. The next\n creation was the Project on National Security and Civil\n Liberties, sponsored by the ACLU Foundation and the CNSS\n (headed by Halperin). Halperin also became director of this\n litigating arm of the nationwide operation. In September\n 1975, ``First Principles'' was launched, published by the\n Project on National Security and Civil Liberties, which\n Halperin directed. Halperin became the chief editorial writer\n for this information-propaganda newsletter of the drive.\n Finally, when the Campaign to Stop Government Spying (CSGS)\n was organized as a united front agitprop force for the\n operation in 1977, Halperin emerged as its chairman. He\n retained his chairmanship of this anti-intelligence\n conglomerate when it changed its name the following year to\n the Campaign for Political Rights (CPR) and held the post\n until the CPR folded in 1984 or so.\n The CPR initially billed itself as ``a project of the Youth\n Project'' of Washington, D.C. It later described itself as\n ``a national coalition of over 80 religious, educational,\n environmental, civic, women's Native American, black,\n latino and labor organizations which have joined together\n to work for an end to covert operations abroad and an end\n to political surveillance and harassment in the United\n States.'' \\3\\\n The CPR began publishing ``Organizing Notes'' (``ON''), its\n official monthly which, in time, began featuring an\n ``Update'' section, saying that the section was ``a combined\n effort of First Principles [published by Halperin's CNSS] and\n Organizing Notes [published by Halperin's CPR].''\n My statement noted that ``CounterSpy'' was on the Steering\n Committee of both the CSGS and the CPR, and that the ``Covert\n Action Information Bulletin (CAIB)'' was also on that of the\n CPR (not formed until 1978, the CAIB did not exist when the\n front was launched in 1977 under its CSGS title), and\n commented that ``as chairperson of both . . . Halperin must\n have had some say about just which groups would be invited to\n join, and which would be selected for leadership positions\n in, his organization.''\n Halperin's reply to the Armed Services Committee: ``The\n piece tries to link me to ``CounterSpy'' and OC5 through my\n chairmanship'' [of CSGS-CPR]. ``It lists a number of the\n member organizations of CPR and its steering committee . . .\n and asserts that I had control over that membership. On the\n contrary, the policy of CPR at that time was that any\n organization could join.''\n Another Halperin lie. I did not write that he ``had\n control'' over the CSGS-CPR membership, but only that he\n ``must have had some say'' about it. Did he attend any\n meeting at which the CPR's ``open to all'' policy was\n discussed or agreed upon. Did he say so much as a word about\n it--pro or con? The chairperson of a group having absolutely\n no say at all about so basic an issue? Come on!\n My statement also noted that ``Organizing Notes,'' the\n publication of the CPR which was chaired by Halperin\n ``routinely promoted both Agee's ``CAIB'' and ``CounterSpy''\n as containing worthwhile material of value to its readers,''\n and commented that ``as chairperson of the CPR he had to be\n responsible for its contents, just as he was for the contents\n of the CPR's `Materials List'.''\n Halperin's response to the committee: ``This is false; an\n editorial staff made decisions about its contents.''\n What kind of dim-witted ``refutation'' is this? Does the\n fact that the chairperson of an organization has an editorial\n or any other kind of staff free him of all responsibility for\n the work it does, no matter how atrocious its product?\n Please!\n My statement also said: ``Halperin's `First Principles',\n like `ON','' also routinely gave favorable notice to the\n contents of current issues of both ``CounterSpy'' and\n ``Covert Action Information Bulletin.''\n Halperin's response: Not a word.\n Strange. As director of both the ACLU`s Project on National\n Security and its Center for National Security Studies, each\n at different times the publisher of ``First Principles''\n (which, like his CPR, had an editorial staff), Halperin says\n elsewhere that he is ``proud'' of his work with the two\n organizations and expects to be ``held accountable'' for it.\n He does not offer in this case, however, the ridiculous ``no\n responsibility'' defense he offered in the case of the CPR's\n ``Organizing Notes.'' At the same time, while refusing to\n accept responsibility for the CPR's organizational membership\n and leadership and its repeated plugs for Agee's\n publications, he apparently accepts responsibility for its\n Materials List compilation of CIA memoirs by presenting a\n false argument in its defense. Just where does he stand on\n this issue of his authority, responsibility and\n accountability?\n He has a language problem here. Webster's Dictionary of the\n American Language defines ``chairperson'' as one who ``heads\n a committee, board, etc.'' and variously defines ``head'' as\n ``a dominant position, position of leadership or first\n importance . . . a foremost person; leader, ruler, chief,\n etc'';\n\n[[Page S12416]]\n\n says that as an adjective says means ``most important;\n principal; commanding, first'' and, as a transitive verb,\n ``to be chief of; command.''\n A director, it says, is a ``supervisor, manager; a person\n who directs or controls''; that ``direct'' means ``to manage\n the affairs of; guide; conduct; regulate control'';\n So, for example, I was deeply involved in the ACLU decision\n to file amicus briefs on behalf of. . . .\n ``So I did have a line responsibility for decisions about\n what cases to undertake or what amicus briefs to file.''\n (pages 33, 34. Emphasis added).\n If Helperin exercised this much authority in the ACLU\n itself where he was technically merely in charge of its\n Washington office, how much more power must he have wielded\n in its various projects, fronts, etc. in which he was\n technically the overall boss as director, chairman, etc.?\n\n halperin's hokum on agee's sources\n\n Responding to my charge that Halperin had testified that\n ``it is difficult to condemn'' people who expose CIA\n personnel on the basis of information gleaned from State\n Department documents, he claims that my statement\n `'completely misrepresents'' his views and that ``when the\n context for that fragment is provided'' it is ``clear that\n the quoted clause did not refer to someone like Philip Agee\n who learned identities as a result of access to classified\n information.''\n More Halperin hokum--as he makes clear in placing the\n ``fragment'' in context. His exact testimony read:\n ``I think where the CIA has not seen fit to provide\n appropriate cover for individuals, and it is easy . . . it\n determine the name simply by looking at State Department\n publications, that it is difficult to condemn people who do\n that.'' (emphasis added)\n That is precisely one of the things Agee and his\n CounterSpy--CAIB crews were doing--``looking at State\n Department publications,'' specifically its unclassified\n Foreign Service List and Biographic Register, among others.\n The first contained the names of all U.S. Foreign Service\n officers and the second brief biographic sketches of all U.S.\n employees working in the field of foreign affairs, which\n obviously embraces many more than State Department personnel.\n This practice was clearly what I was referring to in my\n words ``information gleaned from State Department\n documents,'' and I placed his quote completely in its correct\n context, his claim to the opposite notwithstanding.\n Because it was known that analyses of these publications\n were being used by the Agee crowd and others to help them\n uncover CIA personnel using diplomatic cover, the Department\n announced in early 1976 that it was halting publication of\n both. The Foreign Service List would not appear again, and\n the Biographic Register, last published in 1974, would be\n classified ``for official use only'' when again released, and\n contain more discreet background information.\n It is amazing that Halperin would assert in 1993 that his\n words, as quoted completely in context by me ``did not refer\n to someone like Philip Agee who learned identities as a\n result of access of classified information.'' (emphasis\n added)\n Why? Because only an idiot would believe that, 10 years\n after he left the CIA after service in only three countries,\n Agee could be making continuing exposures of Agency\n personnel, fronts and covert operations in all parts of the\n world on the basis of the official access he had had while in\n the CIA. The CIA simply is not ``built'' to give any of its\n employees such knowledge. Consider, in addition, the\n following among other similar facts that could be cited to\n demonstrate how ridiculous Halperin's claim about Agee's\n sources is:\n The Supreme Court, in its 1981 decision upholding the\n authority of the Secretary of State to deprive Agee of his\n passport, pointed out that when Agee released a list of\n alleged CIA agents at a 1974 London press conference, he said\n the list--\n ``was compiled by a small group of Mexican comrades whom I\n trained to follow the comings and goings of CIA people before\n I left Mexico City'' [where he had been working on his first\n book].\n The Court also noted, based on unchallenged judicial\n evidence, that Agee travels to target countries and--\n ``recruits collaborators and trains them in clandestine\n techniques designed to expose the `cover' of CIA employees\n and sources.''\n In the introduction to his first book, ``Inside The\n Company: CIA Diary,'' Agee thanked the Cuban Communist Party,\n other Cuban agencies and a number of individuals and groups\n in New York City, London, Paris and Mexico City for the help\n they had given him in collecting data and research materials\n for it.\n As Jeff Stein wrote of ``Inside The Company,'' in ``The\n Village Voice'':\n ``the book drained his [Agee's] mind of every agent, code\n name, and cover operation he could remember.''\n His ``Covert Action Information Bulletin'' stated\n truthfully in its issue of January, 1979:\n ``The naming of names in books and in publications like\n this Bulletin have nothing to do with people Philip Agee may\n have met while in the employ of the CIA. And, of course,\n Louis Wolf [a member of the Bulletin's editorial board] and\n most of the other journalists who are engaged in this\n struggle to expose the CIA were never in such government\n employ.''\n William Schaap, Ellen Ray, and Louis Wolf, all CAIB\n editors, testified before the House Intelligence Committee in\n January 1980. Speaking for the group, Schaap said:\n ``You might all be interested to know that Mr. Agee has\n not, to our knowledge, named any names in more than 3 years,\n and that applies as well to both ``Dirty Work'' and ``Dirty\n Work 2,'' the two books which we sitting before you have\n coedited [with Agee].''\n The late Rep. Larry McDonald stated in Congressional Record\n remarks on July 20, 1976:\n ``It is known that the names of alleged CIA personnel in\n London featured in the Spring '76 issue of ``CounterSpy''\n were provided by the International Marxist Group, a British\n Trotskyist group associated with the FI [Fourth\n International, the Trotskyist equivalent of the Comintern],\n headed by IPS's [Institute for Policy Studies'] Tariq Ali.''\n McDonald also revealed in the June 16 Record that year that\n the names of the alleged CIA personnel in Africa named in the\n same ``CounterSpy'' issue had been provided by the Black\n Panthers and the left-wing Paris publication, ``Liberacion.''\n Agee cites Julius Mader's ``Who's Who in the CIA'' as a\n source. Published in 1968, this was a joint production of the\n Communist East German and Czech intelligence services (Mader\n was an East German intelligence officer). Deliberately, only\n about half those listed in it were actually CIA personnel.\n When Agee and William Schaap announced the publication of\n the ``CAIB'' at the Moscow-sponsored 11th World Festival of\n Youth and Friendship in Havana in July 1978, they also\n announced the formation of Counter-Watch, which was to be a\n worldwide network of agents dedicated to exposing CIA\n personnel everywhere. Agee said Counter-Watch would give\n him--\n ``a great opportunity to continue my work of recent years .\n . . so that the people are able to learn about the methods,\n or exactly how to identify the CIA personnel in different\n countries'' (emphasis added).\n [Schaap said Halperin's CNSS was represented in Havana for\n the occasion and that a Damu Smith was also there on behalf\n of Halperin's Campaign to Stop Government Spying (CSGS).]\n Louis Wolf, the ``CAIB'' editor who co-edited ``Dirty\n Work'' with Agee, addressed over 500 delegates to the Havana\n Youth Festival, describing in detail how they should go about\n uncovering the identities of CIA personnel who were using\n military and diplomatic cover. The ``CAIB'' reprinted the\n text of his remarks for their educational value in its second\n (10/78) issue.\n Agee himself, in addition to attending the Soviet-\n engineered festival contributed an article to the first issue\n of ``CAIB'' distributed gratis to the delegates. His article\n was no more than a somewhat altered version of the\n introduction to ``Dirty Work.'' In it he said that ``a\n continuing effort--and a novel form of international\n cooperation'' could ultimately lead to the exposure ``of\n almost all of those [CIA personnel] who have worked under\n diplomatic cover at any time in their careers.'' He spelled\n out the five-step method he had in mind for accomplishing\n this, which included the acquisition of lists of all\n Americans employed in official U.S. offices in each country,\n obtaining old Foreign Service Lists and Biographic Registers\n from libraries, getting copies of the Diplomatic and Consular\n Lists regularly published by all Foreign Ministries, etc.\n Check the information obtained carefully, he said, then\n publish it and organize demonstrations: ``Peaceful protest\n will do the job. And when it doesn't, those whom the CIA has\n most oppressed will find other ways of fighting back'' a\n backhand watch to violence against CIA personnel.\n From the viewpoint of Halperin's operations, however, the\n most interesting item was the opening sentence in the third\n of his five-step methods:\n ``Check the names as suggested in the various articles in\n `Dirty Work,' especially John Marks `How to Spot a Spook.' ''\n Who was John Marks?\n The November 1974 Washington Monthly which originally\n published his ``spook'' article, noted that he was ``an\n associate'' of Halperin's CNSS, as did the Washington Post\n when it published his article, ``The CIA's Corporate Shell\n Game'' in 1976 (both of which were reprinted in Agee's\n ``Dirty Work''). At the time Agee was preparing his above-\n mentioned ``CAIB'' article with its promotion of Marks' opus,\n Halperin's ``First Principles'' listed Marks as the ``CIA\n Project Director'' for the CNSS, which Halperin directed.\n Halperin's CNSS reprinted and sold Marks CIA corporate\n shell game article in pamphlet form. Marks was also a\n member of the Speakers Bureau of Halperin's CSGS, and his\n spook article was promoted by Halperin's CNSS and CPR\n (e.g., see previous Materials List section).\n A former employee of the State Department's Bureau of\n Intelligence and Research, Marks first won notoriety when,\n under the name Terry Pollack, he wrote an article, ``Slow\n Leak In The Pentagon,'' for Ramparts magazine in 1973.\n Subtitled ``the informal art of leaking,'' it recounted how a\n federal employee with access to top-secret Pentagon documents\n had come across a highly sensitive paper of the Joint Chiefs\n of Staff and, through a Congressional aide, leaked it to the\n New York Times. A leakers A-B-C, it was believed to be\n autobiographical.\n The evidence is thus overwhelming that Agee's\n ``CounterSpy--CAIB'' exposures of\n\n[[Page S12417]]\n\n CIA personnel, contrary to Halperin's testimony, are not\n based on his access to classified information while in the\n employ of the CIA. To put it another way, there is a\n superabundance of information indicating that Morton\n Halperin, the claimed and alleged authority on intelligence\n and national security, is in reality a pathetic ignoramus\n about such matters.\n And isn't it strange that Halperin, who has repeatedly\n testified that he is opposed to ``naming names,'' that he has\n counseled others not to do so when asked for advice on the\n matter [who and when?] and, that he ``detests'' what Agee\n does, should have as director of his CIA studies-action\n program, a man known throughout the world for his pioneering\n article on the techniques for uncovering and exposing covert\n U.S. intelligence officers? And isn't it also strange, in\n view of his same testimony, that his CNSS and CSGS-CPR have\n given so much favorable mention to Marks' ``spook'' article?\n [FBI agents searching the apartment of Halperin's friend\n and convicted spy [------ ------], found three photocopies of\n State Department biographies on foreign service personnel\n with this typed notation on them: ``Almost definite spook.''\n Truong was a student of Halperin's CIA Project Director, John\n Marks, even adopting his language to designate suspected CIA\n officers.]\n But is Halperin really that ill-informed and unintelligent?\n There is evidence to the contrary. In the same testimony in\n which he said it is ``difficult to condemn'' exposers who had\n never had access to classified information but learned\n identities by various analytical techniques, he revealed\n thorough knowledge of the instruments used in their analyses:\n he referred to the State Department's halting publication of\n the Biographic Register, of Embassy telephone directories;\n pointed out that articles on identification methods had been\n widely distributed (a reference to his friend John Marks\n ``How to Spot a Spook'', which he had publicized), etc., and\n testified knowingly that ``the people who want to publish the\n names of agents, the Covert Action Publishers, don't need the\n advice of Mr. Agee or any other former official; they could\n do it without that, and don't need access to classified\n information.''\n Clearly, Halperin knew that the exposures in Agee's\n ``CounterSpy--CAIB'' were not based on access to classified\n information.\n Why, then, was he spreading the hokum that Agee's\n identities were ``a result of access to classified\n information''? Only Halperin can answer that.\n But it is clear what would have happened if the House and\n Senate believed the line he was peddling: Congress would have\n enacted identities ``protection'' legislation that was\n completely useless. Criminalizing only exposures based on\n authorized access to classified information, it would not\n touch Agee because it could not be retroactive and he is\n incapable of additional such exposures, having long ago\n exhausted his knowledge of that type.\n Basically, the only real result would be to protect the\n Agee's ``CounterSpy--CAIB'' cabal from prosecution while it\n continued its dirty work of exposing covert U.S. intelligence\n officers, by analytic technique, thus endangering their lives\n as well as the national security.\n\n ny ``vague accusation''\n\n My statement opposing Halperin pointed out that ``part of\n the public record of Morton Halperin's actions relative to\n `Counterspy' . . . and Philip Agree'' was the fact that he\n had been singled out for praise in ``Counterspy's'' winter\n '76 issue which extended ``special thanks'' to 21 people, his\n name and nine other among them being printed in bold type for\n emphasis.\n It also noted that the magazine did not say what the\n special thanks to Halperin were for, but offered several\n possibilities based on the public record. Perhaps, I\n suggested, it was for many speeches he had made, turning over\n his fees, as pledged, to PEPIC; perhaps for his favorite\n review of Agee's book in ``First Principles'', but concluded\n logically ``it could have been for any number of things he\n might have done for ``Counterspy''. All we can do is\n speculate--until Halperin reveals it with substantial\n evidence to support whatever claim he makes.''\n Halperin's response: ``It is difficult to respond to an\n accusation as vague as this one. . . . I do not in fact know\n what motivated the editors of ``Counterspy'' to mention me.''\n Fact: I did not accuse Halperin of anything, vague or\n otherwise. I simply stated a fact he cannot dispute:\n ``Counterspy's'' publicly printed special thanks to him and\n called on him to say what they were for.\n Do you believe that he does not know what they were for?\n Following the murder of CIA station chief Richard Welch in\n Athens in December 1975, ``Counterspy'' was probably the most\n notorious and despised publication in the non-Communist\n world. As it continued its exposures, the initial\n denunciations of it--strong as they were originally--grew\n more intense in the press, on radio and TV, on the floor of\n Congress and in other public forums. And what did readers see\n immediately upon opening the issue that, in effect, marked\n the first anniversary of Welch's death?\n On the contents page, under the names of ``Counterspy's''\n editorial board members and the two ``coordinators'' of the\n issue, an item calling special attention to Halperin's\n name as one meriting the magazine's gratitude. Not only\n that, but just about opposite it was the title of an\n article beginning on page 26: ``CIA Around the World/Who\n was Richard Welch/CIA Agents Named in Europe and Zaire.''\n That was really rubbing it in.\n If, as Halperin testified, he ``detests'' Agee and what he\n does, he must have cringed in shame. He surely was so\n mortified that he would never be able to forget the incident\n and what caused it, no matter how many years passed. His good\n name tarnished forever!\n But he apparently has no recollection of the incident or\n what led to it!\n Presuming he was really desirous of answering my ``vague\n accusation,'' couldn't he have gotten in touch in some way\n with Julie Brooks and/or Harvey Kahn, coordinators of that\n ``CounterSpy'' issue--or Tim Butz, Eda Gordon, Winslow Peck,\n Dough Porter, or Margaret Van Houten--all editorial board\n members at the time and presumably knowledgeable about the\n reason for ``CounterSpy's'' gratitude.\n Did he try? If so, and he reached one or several of them,\n what was he told? If he didn't try, why didn't he?\n Finally, there is this: Halperin compiled for the committee\n a detailed list of honors and awards he has received, his\n employment record, organization memberships, published\n writings, the texts of speeches he had delivered, etc. going\n back years prior to 1976.\n Strange, isn't it, that this is one thing apparently not\n recorded or recalled:\n But, let's be fair to Morton. As he told the committee, my\n accusation was ``vague,'' really vague, so vague as to be\n ephemeral, amorphous. Since it was based completely on\n ``innuendo,'' expecting him to respond to it would be like\n asking him to bottle smoke or nail jello to a wall.\n\n just how ``absurd'' were counterspy and caib?\n\n Admitting my charge that ``CounterSpy'' included on its\n ``Resource List'' two groups he directed, Halperin comments\n that he is ``proud'' of his work with the groups and claims\n it is ``absurd'' to imply that he was ``in any way\n supporting'' the magazine because of this.\n No doubt he would make the same comment had I included\n another similar fact in my statement: that the initial issue\n of Agee's ``CAIB'' featured on its inside back cover an item\n entitled ``Publications of Interest'' and a subhead ``Some\n Worthwhile Periodicals.'' Only four periodicals were listed\n under the subhead presumably because they were the only ones\n Agee and his crew knew of and believed would be useful to the\n delegates to the Soviet-sponsored Havana conference and to\n ``CAIB's'' other readers.\n The first-listed was ``First Principles,'' the organ of\n Halperin's CNSS, its address and subscription price followed\n by this parenthetical statement: ``An excellent review of the\n abuses of the U.S. intelligence community, with a\n comprehensive bibliography in each issue.''\n Third listed was ``Organizing Notes,'' the newsletter of\n Halperin's CPR. Noting that it was ``available by request to\n the Campaign'', the CAIB made this comment after giving its\n address:'' (It is suggested that foreign requests include a\n contribution to cover airmail postage.) (A review of\n activities in the U.S. involving the surveillance practices\n of the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies.)''\n [The other two listed were the publications of the New\n York-based North American Congress on Latin America and a\n ``counterspies'' magazine published in London.]\n What was the significance of this ``CAIB'' item?\n Agee and his ``CAIB'' cronies had been in the business of\n naming names for at least five years (since the first issue\n of ``CounterSpy'' was published in 1973) when they launched\n their magazine in Havana in 1978. During those five years\n they had full opportunity to analyze reactions pro and con\n their operations and to draw conclusions about who their\n enemies, critics, opponents, etc., were and also who their\n supporters, allies, defenders, sympathizers and apologists\n were.\n ``First Principles'' had been published since 1975,\n ``Organizing Notes'' since 1977. The ``CAIB--CounterSpy''\n personnel had apparently read or subscribed to them because,\n as my original statement noted, ``CounterSpy'' had more than\n once given favorable notice to both. Sufficient time had\n elapsed for the CAIB people to assess the past performance of\n both publications and, presuming the continuance of their\n leadership, their likely future activity.\n Perhaps it was absurd for Agee and his collaborators to\n bring Halperin's publications to the attention of all readers\n of ``CAIB's'' first issue, with its ``Worthwhile'' plug, in a\n mistaken belief about their basic orientation. If it was, I,\n for one, can easily understand how they made their mistake\n because Halperin fooled me, too, on this issue. Clearly, it\n was an ``absurd'' mistake for me to believe that anyone else\n would ever think that Halperin supported ``CAIB'' or\n ``CounterSpy'' in any way simply because of the complimentary\n notices those Agee magazines gave his publications.\n\n the revolutionary message in the halperin-cpr ``materials list''\n\n Chaired by Halperin, the CPR was so thoroughgoing in its\n efforts to discredit U.S. intelligence agencies that it\n sought out every possible item that could be used against\n them, even peddling buttons proclaiming\n\n[[Page S12418]]\n\n what it deemed appropriate messages. The last section of its\n list offered for $1.00 a 2'' diameter button proclaiming ``I\n am Kathy Power.''\n What did this signify?\n Katherine Ann Power (``Kathy'' to her friends, allies and\n defenders), charged with murder, armed robbery, theft of\n government property and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution,\n turned herself in to authorities in September 1993 after 25\n years as a fugitive from justice. On the FBI's Ten Most\n Wanted list for 14 of those years--longer than any other\n woman in history--she had been dropped from it in 1984 for\n lack of any clues to her whereabouts. How had she ``made''\n the list?\n ``Kathy,'' sister revolutionary Susan Saxe, and three ex-\n convicts--all ``anti-war'' students at Brandeis University--\n broke into a National Guard armory in Newburyport, MA, on\n September 20, 1970 and stole blasting caps, 400 rounds of\n .30-caliber ammunition, radios and a pickup truck in\n preparation for their coming revolution against the U.S.\n Three days later, they robbed a Boston branch of the State\n Street Bank and Trust of $26,000 to help finance that\n revolution. As he approached the front door of the bank in\n response to a silent alarm, police officer Walter Schroeder,\n a 41-year old father of nine, was shot dead when one of the\n convicts, acting as a lookout, emptied his machine gun into\n the officer's back. Kathy drove the getaway car.\n The three convicts were captured shortly thereafter. Power\n and Saxe, also wanted for the $6240 holdup of the Bell\n Savings and Loan Association in Philadelphia on September 1,\n 1970, escaped. A thoroughly unrepentant Saxe, captured in\n 1975, pleaded guilty to all charges the following year.\n ``Kathy'' Power continued to elude authorities for 18 more\n years--a tribute to the effectiveness of the terrorist\n underground in the U.S. Since her surrender, she has been\n offered $500,000 for her story. State judge Robert Banks,\n sentencing her to 8-12 years and 20 years probation for the\n robbery-murder, directed that she not profit a penny by her\n story or he would change her sentence to life imprisonment,\n declaring:\n ``I will not permit profit from the lifeblood of a Boston\n police officer.'' Schroeder's eldest child, Clare, now a\n police officer herself, in court at Power's sentencing,\n commented, ``He gave his life to protect us from people like\n Katherine Power.''\n A federal judge later sentenced Power to five years for the\n armory robbery (to be served concurrently with the state\n sentence) and a $10,000 fine. Power's lawyers and the\n Massachusetts ACLU--true to typical ACLU performance--are\n appealing the no profit element of her robbery-murder\n sentence as violating her First Amendment right to free\n expression.\n ``Kathy's'' crimes were eight years old when the CPR's\n Materials List supporting her message of defiance of the FBI\n and the U.S. system of justice was released in 1978. By that\n time, all her associates in her crimes had either confessed\n to, or been convicted of, them. There was little or no\n question about the guilt of the revolutionary fugitive who\n was still successfully evading the law and justice.\n Yet that was when Halperin's CPR chose to defend and\n glorify her--``I am Kathy Power''--to hold her up as a model\n who merited the support and adulation of the American people.\n\n footnotes\n\n \\1\\ District Courts: U.S. v. Clay, '70; U.S. v. Smith, '71;\n U.S. v. O'Baugh, '69; U.S. v. Brown, '73; U.S. v. Stone, '69;\n U.S. v. Hoffman, '71; Circuit Courts of Appeals: 9th (Buck);\n 5th (Clay, Brown) 3rd (Butenko).\n \\2\\ ``The Nationwide Drive Against Law Enforcement\n Intelligence Activities,'' Hearing, Subcommittee on Internal\n Security, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate,\n 94th Congress, First Session, September 18, 1975. ``Freedom\n of Information Act--Appendix'' Hearings, Subcommittee on the\n Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, United States\n Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, First Session, July-\n December, 1981, Volume 2, Serial No. J-97-50, pp. 383-430.\n ``FOIA: A Good Law that Must Be Changed,'' Human Events,\n October 29, 1983, pp. 10-13, particularly 13.\n ``Will `Mr. Anti-Intelligence' Get Key ACLU Post?,'' Human\n Events, December 29, 1984, pp. 10-13, 16.\n \\3\\ CPR member organizations included, in addition to\n ``CounterSpy'' and ``Covert Action Information Bulletin,''\n the National Lawyers Guild, cited as a Communist front by\n House and Senate investigating committees, the National\n Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression and National\n Committee Against Repressive Legislation, both cited by the\n House Committee on Internal Security; Women Strike for Peace,\n by the House Committee; the National Emergency Civil\n Liberties Committee, also by both Senate and House\n committees, and a considerable number of violence-advocating\n groups such as the Black Panther Party and American Indian\n Movement, as well as a number of church-affiliated\n organizations.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12418", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE SENATE STAFF OF THE 104TH CONGRESS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12418", "S12419", "[{\"name\": \"Thomas A. Daschle\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12418", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12418-S12419]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE SENATE STAFF OF THE 104TH CONGRESS\n\n Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress comes to a\nclose, I want to recognize some of the people without whom the Senate\nsimply could not operate--the loyal staff who served this institution\nwith great dedication and pride.\n The sacrifices staff make are largely unknown to most people outside\nthe Senate. For instance, during the final weeks of this session, many\nof the staff of the House and Senate appropriations committees worked\nover 100 hours straight to finalize the omnibus appropriations bill.\nWhen I leave for home after a late night, I generally pass by the\nOfficial Reporters of Debates, who face several more hours in the\noffice to finish up that day's Congressional Record.\n Anyone who understands the Senate understands the crucial role staff\nplays. Today, I want to thank all Senate staff for their service to the\nSenate and to the Nation.\n In particular, I want to mention some of the people who are\nresponsible for the daily operations of the Senate. I begin by\nexpressing my gratitude to the office of the Secretary of the Senate.\nWe have a new Secretary of the Senate, Gary Sisco. Though he has been\non board only a few days, I am confident that Gary will be as easy to\nwork with and will demonstrate the same dependable professionalism of\nhis predecessor, Kelly Johnston.\n We also have a new Sergeant at Arms, Gregory Casey. We will miss\nformer Sergeant at Arms Howard Greene's valuable knowledge of the\nSenate, but I am sure that Greg will approach the job with the same\nlove for the Senate that Howard demonstrated. The Sergeant at Arms has\nbeen supported by the capable assistance of the former Deputy Sergeant\nat Arms, Joyce McCluney, and the current Deputy, Larry Harris. The\nSergeant's office is also assisted by the work of Marie Angus and Patty\nMcNally. I would like to give special thanks for the hard work and\nconsummate professionalism of Jeri Thomson, the executive assistant for\nthe minority, who has provided invaluable assistance to me and to my\nDemocratic colleagues.\n All Senators, I am sure, are grateful for the counsel and support\nthey receive from the staff who work the Senate floor and Cloakrooms.\nThat assistance has become even more valuable to me since I became\nDemocratic leader.\n Our Democratic floor staff works under the excellent leadership of\nMarty Paone, the Secretary for the Minority. Under great pressure,\noften with little time and with little margin for error, Marty has time\nand again provided wise counsel to me and to my Democratic colleagues.\nDespite the pressures, Marty always finds time to respond to questions\nfrom Senator and staff alike--everything from the routine question\nabout timing of votes to the most complex analysis of parliamentary\nprocedure. The rare combination of a sharp mind, even temperament, and\nindepth experience makes Marty one of the most valuable officers of the\nSenate, and I want to thank him and recognize him for that. Marty is\nassisted by the hard work of Maura Farley McGee and Sue Spatz.\n\n Day-to-day management of the floor operation is in the capable and\nenergetic hands of Lula Davis, the Assistant Secretary to the Minority.\nLula's ability to juggle multiple tasks--from negotiations over bills\nthat we seek to clear by unanimous consent, to advising Senators and\nstaff on legislative strategy, to acting as informal fashion adviser to\nmany of my colleagues--demonstrates her tireless dedication to making\nthings work around here. Working on the Democratic floor staff with\nMarty and Lula during the 104th Congress have been Art Cameron and\nKelly Riordan, both of whom we have since lost to the Treasury\nDepartment and law school, respectively, and Gary Myrick and Paul\nBrown, who have moved from the Cloakroom and the Democratic Policy\nCommittee, respectively. They were all assisted by the hard work of\nBrad Austin, who leaves shortly for a professional adventure in Malawi.\n Our Democratic Cloakroom staff, Lenny Oursler, Paul Cloutier,\nChristina Krasow, and Brian Griffin, also provide invaluable assistance\nin many aspects of our Senate life. Among other things, they field\ncountless queries about what the Senate is doing and when votes will\noccur, including that age-old question, ``Will there be any more\nrollcall votes tonight?'' They help us stay on schedule and where we\nare supposed to be, all while keeping track of the flurry of\nlegislation that moves through here and keeping most of us entertained.\nI salute them for their hard work and good humor and thank them for\ntheir assistance.\n It is no exaggeration to say that our ability to navigate the\ncomplexities of Senate rules and procedures would be\n\n[[Page S12419]]\n\nimpossible without the assistance of our Parliamentarians. Senate\nParliamentarian Bob Dove, with the outstanding assistance of Senior\nAssistant Parliamentarian Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian Kevin\nKayes, and Parliamentary Assistant Sally Goffinet, provides an\nunparalleled level of expertise and understanding of Senate procedure.\n Our growing C-SPAN audience has no doubt become familiar with the\ncommanding voice of Legislative Clerk Scott Bates and his assistant\nDavid Tinsley; Bill Clerk Kathie Alvarez has also become a notable\npresence. Kathie is assisted in her duties as bill clerk by Danielle\nFling and Mary Anne Clarkson. Our legislative and bill clerks deserve\nthe thanks and respect of all Senators for their keen attention to\ndetail and their patient professionalism.\n Journal Clerk William Lackey and his assistants Patrick Keating and\nMark Lacovara; Enrolling Clerk Tom Lundregan and his assistant Charlene\nMcDevitt; Executive Clerk David Marcos and his assistant Michelle\nHaynes; Daily Digest Editor Thomas Pellikaan, Assistant Editor Linda\nSebold, and Staff Assistant Kimberly Longsworth, all have my gratitude\nfor their long hours and hard work.\n I also would like to thank and commend again our official Reporters\nof Debates for their hard work: Chief Reporter Ronald Kavulick and\nAssistant Chief Reporter--and Congressional Record Coordinator--Scott\nSanborn; Morning Business Editor Ken Dean and Assistant Editor Lee\nBrown; Expert Transcriber Supervisor Eileen Connor and her assistants,\nDonald Corrigan and Eileen Milton; and the Official Reporters of\nDebates: Jerald Linnell, Raleigh Milton, Joel Brietner, Mary Jane\nMcCarthy, Paul Nelson, Katie-Jane Teel, and Patrick Renzi.\n I also want to thank our Senate Doorkeepers, directed by Arthur\nCurran and Donn Larson, for the friendly, and helpful attitude they\nbring to their jobs, often in the face of long and uncertain hours.\nWithout their assistance and that of all of our Senate support staff,\nour work simply could not get done.\n Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank my own staff and the staff of\nthe Democratic Leadership Committees, whom I share with Senators Reid,\nRockefeller, and Kerry. These bright, talented people are dedicated to\nthe effort to serve the people of South Dakota and the Nation, as well\nas every Democratic senator and their staffs. They do a tremendous job,\nand I owe each of them a debt of gratitude.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12419-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO SENATOR HEFLIN", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12419", "S12419", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12419", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12419]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO SENATOR HEFLIN\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, sometimes there are those among us\nwhose Senatorial persona overshadows the full measure of past\nachievement.\n Such a man is the retiring senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin].\nThose who witness his wisdom and dignity of bearing on the floor of the\nSenate have no difficulty in envisioning him as the chief justice of\nthe Alabama Supreme Court. But they may not perceive the U.S. Marine of\nWorld War II who was wounded twice in combat and awarded the Silver\nStar.\n My own special insight into the exceptional character of Judge Heflin\ncame when we shared the discomfort of a field trip into the Brazilian\nrain forest. As always his qualities of wit and wisdom shown through.\n Here in the Senate, his unshakable demeanor and integrity have\nendeared him to all and served as a model for the sort of decorum and\ncomity which should pervade our proceedings. It was inevitable that we\nshould award him with the thankless task of chairing the Select\nCommittee on Ethics.\n I thank Judge Heflin for all he has done to enrich the life of the\nSenate, and I wish him well as he returns to Alabama.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12419-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO SENATOR EXON", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12419", "S12419", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12419", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12419]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO SENATOR EXON\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity\nto express my best wishes to Senator James Exon, who is retiring from\nthe Senate after 18 years of dedicated service to his constituents in\nNebraska. He is a true friend and a respected and trusted colleague.\n As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Exon has\nprovided invaluable leadership in ensuring the integrity of our\nnational defense. I have had the honor of working with him on the\nproblem of U.S. nuclear weapons testing.\n At the end of the cold war, Senator Exon utilized his common sense\nand Midwestern values to grapple with the difficult task of defense\ndownsizing. Senator Exon was not afraid to take on this, and other,\ndifficult issues--deficit reduction and restricting foreign takeovers\nof businesses that are vital to our national security.\n Jim Exon has earned the respect and gratitude of his colleagues,\nconstituents, and citizens of our Nation. I know that I shall miss my\ncolleague from Nebraska and I wish him well in his future\nendeavors.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12419-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO SENATOR COHEN", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12419", "S12419", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12419", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12419]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO SENATOR COHEN\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to\nSenator William Cohen who is returning to his homestate of Maine after\nserving with distinction in the Senate for 18 years. I'm glad to have\nthe opportunity to honor my friend who has made such an outstanding\ncontribution to our region and the country\n I have often lamented the rise in partisanship that has permeated\nthis Chamber over the past several years. I continue to believe that\nour Nation is best served by leaders who have respect for different\nviews and the ability to compromise and negotiate meaningful policy.\nSenator Cohen is not only a man who I believe shares this view, but has\npracticed it and made bipartisan consensus his trademark.\n Senator Cohen has been a leader in foregoing bipartisan solutions to\nsome of our Nation's most vexing problems. To ensure the public's trust\nin Congress, Senator Cohen worked tirelessly with Senator Levin to help\nenact a lobby disclosure and gift ban. When America was embroiled in\nthe Iran-Contra affair, Senator Cohen joined Senator Mitchell in\nexamining and investigating allegations of misconduct by the executive\nbranch. Senator Cohen has always sought a dialog to consider as many\nviews as possible and supported legislation that holds all Senators to\nthe highest standard.\n My colleague from New England, the senior Senator from Maine, is also\nthe author of eight books. Senator Cohen is still a young man and while\nhe will be greatly missed in the Senate, I wish him well in what I am\nsure will be a bright future.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12419-5", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO SENATOR BROWN", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12419", "S12420", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12419", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12419-S12420]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO SENATOR BROWN\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I salute the senior Senator from\nColorado [Mr. Brown] on the occasion of his retirement from the Senate.\nDuring this term here he has contributed a great deal, especially in\nhis work on the Committee on Foreign Relations.\n During the first years of his term, he served as the ranking\nRepublican member of the Subcommittee on International Relations, where\nI especially appreciated his bipartisan support in helping to forge the\nState Department authorization bill.\n\n[[Page S12420]]\n\n Subsequently, in the 104th Congress, he assumed the chairmanship of\nthe Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, and conducted\na remarkable number of hearings on matters relating to the area. I was\nespecially pleased that he shared my strong and long-standing interest\nin the India subcontinent.\n While we frequently found ourselves on different sides of the issues,\nI always appreciated the great good humor that Hank Brown brought to\nhis work on the committee, along with his unflagging energy. I thank\nhim for that, and wish him well in all that lies ahead for him and his\nfamily. He is a fine man and one for whom I have high regard.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12419", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHNSTON", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12419", "S12419", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12419", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12419]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO SENATOR JOHNSTON\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I salute my old friend and colleague\nthe senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] as he reaches the end\nof his distinguished Senate career.\n It has been my special good fortune to know Bennett Johnston as a\nfriend, quite apart from our collegial work here in the Senate. I have\nenjoyed his hospitality on many occasions and have appreciated his good\nsportsmanship on the tennis court. As I said when he announced his\nintention to retire last year, he can always be called a straight\nshooter, in the best sense of the word.\n He will, of course, best be remembered for his landmark work as\nchairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, particularly as\nthat committee grappled with the new challenges posed by nuclear\nenergy. I salute him for that, and I know that he has charted new\nground where others will surely follow.\n One of the most difficult aspects of leaving this body is the loss of\ndaily contact with colleagues whose friendship has enriched the\nexperience of Senate service. Bennett Johnston has truly been one such\ncolleague, and I wish all the best for him and his lovely wife, Mary,\nin all that lies ahead.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12420", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SOME PARTING THOUGHTS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12420", "S12422", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12420", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12420-S12422]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SOME PARTING THOUGHTS\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as I approach the end of my sixth\nterm in the Senate, I look back at the 36 years with wonder and awe at\nwhat we have passed through, but with some concern for the future of\nour institutions in the century ahead.\n My concern is rooted in apprehension that human nature may not be\nkeeping pace with the means now at our disposal to influence opinion\nand effect change.\n A long range, telescopic view of our place in history puts this\nconcern in perspective, particularly as we approach the end of the\nsecond millennium. The thousand years that began with a tradition of\nchivalry in dank Medieval castles, ends with a distinctly unchivalrous,\nalbeit more comfortable, world community tied together by the instant\nmiracle of electronic communication and jet flight, but overshadowed by\nthe still lingering threat of mass destruction.\n Considering these extremes, I am led to reflect that the rules of\nhuman behavior in the conduct of public affairs have not developed as\nrapidly as the provisions for human comfort, or the means of\ncommunication--or indeed, of mass destruction.\n Sometimes, it almost seems, to paraphrase a common humorous\nexpression, as though we should ``stop the world'' and let the human\nspirit catch up with technological progress. So now I ask myself what\nguidance can we give to those who follow that would help them, short of\nstopping the world, to reconcile the realities of the day with the\nrealm of the spirit?\n When I came to the Senate in 1961, it was, in retrospect, a time of\nalmost unlimited possibilities. Most of us were imbued with a rather\nexuberant mind-set conditioned by recent events. We had lived through\nthe economic crises of the 1930's and we had survived the cataclysm of\nWorld War II, and in both cases it had been the dominant role of a\nstrong central government which had saved the day. So it was not\nsurprising that we brought with us a great sense of confidence in the\nrole of government.\n We extended that faith in progressive government into many other\nareas, and I believe we did many good things in its name in the years\nthat followed. I am very proud of the fact that I was able to play a\nmodest part in these endeavors, particularly in the field of education.\n But hovering over us for the three decades that followed was the\nnumbing specter of the cold war that tested our endurance and our\nnerve. It was in the peripheral engagements of the cold war, first\nKorea and then, most conclusively, in Vietnam, that the basic tenets of\nour commitment were put to the test. And in the latter event, they were\nfound wanting in the minds and hearts of many of us.\n In retrospect, it may well have been the widespread disillusionment\nwith foreign policy in the Vietnam era which sowed the seeds of a\nbroader cynicism which seems to be abroad in the land today. And with\nit came an end to that sense of unlimited possibilities that many of us\nbrought to public life.\n Many other factors have contributed to that current of cynicism, but\nprimary among them, in my view, is the impact of the electronic media,\nparticularly in its treatment of politics and public affairs. At its\nworst, it glorifies sensationalism, thrives on superficiality and\nraises false expectations, often by holding people in public life\naccountable to standards which are frequently unrealistic or simply not\nrelevant.\n Unfortunately, the rise of the electronic media has coincided with\nthe coming of age of a new generation of Americans which is both\nblessed and challenged by the absence of the unifying force of a clear\nnational adversary.\n I am reminded, in this connection, of Shakespeare's reference to\n``the cankers of a calm world and a long peace,'' referring to the age\nof Henry IV, when a temporary absence of conflict had an adverse effect\non the quality of recruits pressed into military service. In our time,\nthe sudden ending of the cold war removed what had been a unifying\nnational threat, leaving in its wake a vacuum of purpose which I fear\nhas been filled in part by the cankers of the electronic media.\n The result has been a climate which exploits the natural\nconfrontational atmosphere of the democratic process by accentuating\nextremes without elaborating on the less exciting details. It is a\nclimate which encourages pandering to the lowest levels of public and\nprivate greed, a prime example of which is the almost universal\ndefamation of the taxing power which makes it virtually impossible to\nconduct a rational public debate over revenue policy.\n The times call for a renewed sense of moral responsibility in public\nservice, and for service performed with courage of conviction. To be\nsure, this is not a new idea. One of my favorite political quotations\nin this regard is an excerpt from a speech by Edmund Burke to the\nElectors of Bristol in 1774:\n\n Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but\n his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he\n sacrifices it to your opinion.\n\n It must be noted that Mr. Burke was thrown out of office not long\nafter making this speech, demonstrating a courage of conviction on his\npart and on the part of the electors as well. But he stands as a model,\nnonetheless, of the sort of selfless dedication to principle which must\nbe brought to bear in the current climate.\n Beyond individual virtue, I believe we must strive in a corporate\nsense for a qualitative change in public dialog. If I could have one\nwish for the future of our country in the new millennium, it would be\nthat we not abandon the traditional norms of behavior that are the\nunderpinning of our democratic system.\n Comity and civility, transcending differences of party and ideology,\nhave always been crucial elements in making Government an effective and\nconstructive instrument of public will. But in times such as these,\nwhen there is fundamental disagreement about the role of Government, it\nis all the more essential that we preserve the spirit of civil\ndiscourse.\n It has been distressing of late to hear the complaints of those who\nwould abandon public service because they find the atmosphere mean\nspirited. They seem to suggest that the basic rules of civilized\nbehavior have been stifled.\n They make a good point, although I hasten to say that this was not a\nconsideration in my own decision to retire at the end of my present\nterm. After more than 35 years, I have some to expect a certain amount\nof rancor in the legislative process. But I certainly agree that it\nseems to have gotten out of bounds.\n I say this with all respect for my colleagues in the Senate. They are\nwonderfully talented men and women, dedicated to serving their\nconstituents and to improving the quality of our national life. I do\nnot expect to have the good fortune again to work with such a fine,\nwell-motivated and able group. But even this exceptional group\nsometimes yields to the virus of discontent which has infected the body\npolitic.\n In 1995, before retiring from the Senate to become president of the\nUniversity of Oklahoma, my good friend David Boren sent a letter to his\ncolleagues lamenting the fact that ``we have become so partisan and so\npersonal in our attacks upon each other that we can no longer\neffectively work together in the natural interest.'' It was a\nthoughtful warning that has meaning far beyond the U.S. Senate and\napplies to our whole national political dialog.\n The fact is that the democratic process depends on respectful\ndisagreement. As soon as we confuse civil debate with reckless\ndisparagement, we have crippled the process. A breakdown of civility\nreinforces extremism and\n\n[[Page S12421]]\n\ndiscourages the hard process of negotiating across party lines to reach\na broad-based consensus.\n The Founding Fathers who prescribed the ground rules for debate in\nCongress certainly had all these considerations in mind. We address\neach other in the third person with what seems like elaborate courtesy.\nThe purpose, of course, is to remind us constantly that whatever the\ndepth of our disagreements, we are all common instruments of the\ndemocratic process.\n Some of that spirit, I believe, needs to be infused into the\ncontinuing national debate that takes place outside the Halls of\nCongress. It should be absorbed by our political parties and it should\nbe respected by the media, particularly in this era of electronic\ninformation. The democratic process is not well served by spin doctors\nand sound bites.\n Nor is it well served by blustering assertions of no compromise, such\nas those we heard in the wake of the 1994 congressional elections.\nDavid Boren had the temerity--and wisdom--to suggest that instead of\nholding weekly meetings to plot how to outsmart each other, the party\ncaucuses in the Senate should hold two meetings a month to explore\nbipartisan solutions on pending issues. Again, it's another good idea\nwhich could apply to the national dialog.\n I would only add my own prescription for comity, which can be\nsummarized in three simple rules:\n First, never respond to an adversary in ad hominem terms. In my six\ncampaigns for the Senate, I have never resorted to negative\nadvertising. The electorate seems to have liked that approach, since\nthey have given me an average margin of victory of 64 percent.\n Second, always let the other fellow have your way. I have always\nfound that winning an ally is far more important than getting exclusive\ncredit. In politics, the best way to convince someone is to lead him or\nher to discover what you already know.\n Third, sometimes, half a loaf can feed an army. The democratic\nprocess is meant to be slow and deliberate, and change is hard to\nachieve. Very often, achievement of half of an objective is just as\nsignificant as achievement of 100 percent. And it may make it easier to\nachieve the rest later.\n In Government, as in all endeavors, it is the end result that\ncounts--whether that result is half a loaf or more. Hopefully, an\nincrease in comity and civility, together with renewed emphasis on\nmoral responsibility, will result in a qualitative improvement in end\nresults.\n\n In that regard, I have been guided throughout my Senate career by a\nsimple motto and statement of purpose. It is a mantra of just seven\nwords:\n\n translate ideas into action and help people\n\n There have been some days, to be sure, when neither of these\nobjectives has been achieved, but week after week and year after year,\nI have found those words to be useful guideposts for a legislative\ncareer. They help one sort the wheat from the chaff.\n And they also are a constant reminder that our role is to produce\nresults in the form of sound legislation, and not engage in endless and\nrepetitive debate that leads nowhere. This is an especially hard\nprescription for the U.S. Senate, comprised as it is of 100 coequal\nMembers, each representing a sovereign State. Everyone has a right to\nspeak at length.\n But there are some limits. And a principal one is the Senate's rule\nthat debate can be curtailed by invoking cloture, if three-fifths of\nthe Members, or 60 Senators, vote to do so. It has been my general\npolicy to vote for cloture, regardless of party or issue, except when\nthere were very compelling circumstances to the contrary. Over my\nSenate career I have cost more than 350 votes for cloture, which may be\nsomething of a record.\n It should be noted that circumstances have changed greatly since the\nSenate imposed the cloture rule back in 1917. In those days, there were\ngenuine filibusters with marathon speeches that often kept the Senate\nin continuous session for days, including all night sessions with cots\nset up in the lobbies. Nowadays, such displays of endurance virtually\nnever occur, but at the very threat of extended debate, the 60-vote\nrequirement is invoked to see if the minority has enough votes to\nprevail against it--and if they do, the pending bill is often pulled\ndown and set aside.\n The 60-vote margin, which originally was set even higher at two-\nthirds of those present, was designed to protect the minority's right\nto make itself heard, while still providing a vehicle for curbing\ndebate. Only a super majority can impose limits. But as time and\npractice have evolved, the other side of the coin has revealed itself--\nnamely that a willful minority of 40 or more Senators can use the\ncloture rule to block legislative progress. Recent majority leaders of\nboth parties have expressed frustration with the deadlocks that can\nresult.\n The ultimate solution, of course, might be to outlaw all super\nmajorities, except for those specifically allowed by the Constitution--\nsuch as veto overrides, treaty approvals and impeachment verdicts.\nSince the Constitution carefully provides for these specific\nexceptions, it might be assumed that the Framers intended that all\nother business should be transacted by a simple majority.\n I must hasten to say that while I find the logic of such an ultimate\nsolution to be intriguing, I do not subscribe to it. As a Senator from\nthe smallest State, I have always been sensitive to the fact that\ncircumstances could arise in which I would need the special protection\nof minority rights which is accorded by the cloture rule.\n One possible solution which certainly bears future consideration is a\ncompromise recently proposed by Senator Tom Harkin. Under his plan, the\nexisting cloture rule would be modified by providing that if the three-\nfifth is not obtained on the first try, the margin be reduced\nprogressively on subsequent cloture votes on the same bill over a\nperiod of time until only a simple majority would be required to shut\noff debate. Such a plan would protect the minority but would do so\nwithin reasonable limits of time, after which the majority could\nconduct the business of the Senate.\n With reasonable reforms in the cloture rule, and with a new spirit of\ncomity and civility along with a renewed sense of responsible public\nservice, I do believe the Senate, and our institutions of government in\ngeneral, can rise to the challenges of the new century. And in doing\nso, they hopefully will address more satisfactorily than we have done\nso far some of the truly compelling issues of our times--such as\neconomic disparity and racial and social inequality.\n\n Over the years, I have thought time and again of the historical\ncomparison between Sparta and Athens. Sparta is known historically for\nits ability to wage war, and little more. Athens, however, is known for\nits immense contributions to culture and civilization.\n In all that I have done over the past 36 years in the U.S. Senate, I\nhave had that comparison uppermost in mind. I believe deeply that when\nthe full history of our Nation is recorded, it is critical that we be\nknown as an Athens, and not a Sparta.\n My efforts in foreign relations have been guided accordingly. I\nbelieve that instead of our ability to wage war, we should be known for\nour ability to bring peace. Having been the first and only nation to\nuse a nuclear weapon, we should be known as the nation that brought an\nend to the spread of nuclear weapons. We should be known as the nation\nthat went the extra mile to bring peace among warring nations. We\nshould be known as the nation that made both land and sea safe for all.\n In particular, I believe that we should seize every opportunity to\nengage in multilateral efforts to preserve world peace. We should\nredouble our support for the United Nations, and not diminish it as\nsome propose. We should not lose sight of the UN's solid record of\nbrokering peace--actions that have consistently served U.S. interests\nand spared us the costly alternatives that might have otherwise\nresulted.\n In education, I want us to be known as the nation that continually\nexpanded educational opportunities--that brought every child into the\neducational mainstream, and that brought the dream of a college\neducation within the reach of every student who has the drive, talent,\nand desire. We should always remember that public support for education\nis the best possible investment we can make in our Nation's\n\n[[Page S12422]]\n\nfuture. It should be accorded the highest priority.\n In the arts and humanities, I want us to be known for our\ncontributions, and for the encouragement we give to young and old alike\nto pursue their God-given talents. I want us to be recognized as a\nnation that opened the arts to everyone, and brought the humanities\ninto every home. And here too, I believe government has a proper role\nin strengthening and preserving our national cultural heritage.\n Pursuing these objectives is not an endeavor that ends with the\nretirement of one person. It is a lifetime pursuit of a nation, and not\nan individual. It is always a work of art in progress, and always one\nsubject to temporary lapses and setbacks. My hope, however, is that it\nis our ongoing mission to become, like Athens, a nation that is known\nfor its civility and its civilization.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12422-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "IMPORTANT WORK ON BEHALF OF WORKING PEOPLE DONE BY LABOR COMMITTEE DURING MY TENURE", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12422", "S12422", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12422", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12422]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n IMPORTANT WORK ON BEHALF OF WORKING PEOPLE DONE BY LABOR COMMITTEE\n DURING MY TENURE\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, upon joining the U.S. Senate in\nJanuary 1961, I became a member of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare\nCommittee--now called the Labor and Human Resources Committee.\n From the beginning of my career-long tenure on the committee until\ntoday, I have had the distinct honor of serving with and learning from\nsome giants of the Senate and have had the pleasure of working on many\nimportant pieces of legislation.\n When I first joined the committee on January 1961--which, according\nto the Official Congressional Directory for the 87th Congress, met on\nthe second and forth Thursdays of each month--membership of the\ncommittee included Ralph Yarborough of Texas, the great Jennings\nRandolph of West Virginia, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen and my old,\ndear friend Jacob Javits. The following year, John Tower joined the\ncommittee.\n In 1963, our current ranking member Ted Kennedy first came to the\ncommittee. Few can question the wonderful work Senator Kennedy has done\nfor America from his post on the committee.\n In the years following, many outstanding members of this body joined\nthe committee and shared their skills and insights with us. Along with\nthose I have already referred to, I have had the pleasure of working\nwith many whose names are well known to this day: Robert F. Kennedy,\nWalter Mondale, Tom Eagleton, Alan Cranston, Richard Schweicker, my\npartner for many years on Education matters Robert Stafford, Orrin\nHatch, Howard Metzenbaum, Strom Thurmond and our current Chair, the\nmost gracious Nancy Kassebaum. I do not believe our committee has ever\nbeen led by a more evenhanded Chair.\n I think it is a tribute to the committee and the importance of its\njurisdiction that some of the greatest Senators of our time decided to\nsit on the committee.\n During my tenure on the Labor Committee, the committee has worked on\nmany important issues in the areas of health, education, and labor\nincluding many directly affecting the working men and women of this\ncountry.\n A brief review of the achievements of the Senate Labor and Human\nResources Committee shows that during the past 36 years, we have worked\nto create and improve laws of great import to the working people of\nthis Nation.\n The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 established broad\nminimum standards for the conditions under which American workers work.\n The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 gave the Equal\nEmployment and Opportunity Commission much needed teeth to curb\nworkplace discrimination.\n In 1974, unemployment compensation was extended to 12 million\npreviously uncovered Americans.\n After five years of committee hearings and study, the Employee\nRetirement Income Security Act [ERISA] was enacted that guaranteed that\npension plan participants would receive their promised benefits even if\nthe pension fund was terminated.\n The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibited workplace\ndiscrimination for workers between 40 and 67 years of age.\n When I joined the committee in 1961, the Federal minimum wage was $1.\nThat minimum was increased over the years and thanks to the efforts of\nmany on this committee, minimum wage workers in the United States will\nbe receiving a much needed raise to $5.15 over the next 2 years.\n Many job retraining programs have been established to help workers\nwho have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. During the\n104th Congress, the committee spent a great deal of time trying to\nunify the Federal programs into one single program better suited for\nthe demands of today's workplace. Unfortunately, those efforts ended in\nfailure.\n In 1988, legislation passed by this committee to require advance\nnotification to workers of plant closings and large scale layoffs\nbecame law.\n In 1986, certain protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act were\nextended to disabled individuals.\n The above is but a thumbnail outline of the important work in the\narea of labor and employment done by the Labor Committee during the\npast 36 years. I am pleased to have been involved in such important\nwork with a fine group of colleagues--both well-known and\nunsung.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12422-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "CODETERMINATION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12422", "S12423", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2499\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12422", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12422-S12423]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n CODETERMINATION\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for many years, I have been\ninterested in the efforts of many countries in Europe to involve their\nworkers in all levels of company decisionmaking. Employees serve on the\nboard of directors which addresses long-term management of the company,\nthe Supervisory or Administrative Board that deals with the daily\noperations of the company, and Works Councils which are localized with\nmany councils existing within the same plant. This practice is often\nreferred to as codetermination.\n While European-style codetermination would not be a perfect fit here\nin the United States, the concept of worker involvement remains valid.\nAfter years of bitter, and even violent interaction and with the ever\nincreasing demands of a high-tech workplace in a\n\n[[Page S12423]]\n\nglobal economy, a more collaborative process has developed that brings\nworkers and employers together on an ongoing basis. Companies ranging\nfrom Texas Instruments and IBM to Harley-Davidson motorcycles have\ninstituted ongoing employer-employee work councils in which employees\nand employers cooperatively determine the direction of their company.\n There is, I believe, little disagreement about the value of these\ncouncils. There is, however, considerable debate about the legality of\nthese groups. We are told by some that this disagreement produces a\nchilling effect that hinders the continued and future development of\nemployer-employee work councils.\n I have worked for some time to find a balance. During the 103d\nCongress, I introduced legislation, S. 2499, which, among other\nfeatures, established a formal election process for employee\nrepresentatives to labor-management groups.\n During the 104th Congress, improved labor-management relations were\nhighjacked by partisan politics and corporate greed in the form the\nTEAM Act which attempted to rewrite Federal labor law to give employers\ncontrol of labor-management teams.\n I did not reintroduce that legislation but continued to explore other\nways to accomplish change. I seriously considered offering an amendment\nto the TEAM Act to give employees the right to select their own council\nrepresentatives; ensure that council agendas were open to both\nemployees and employers and finally, prohibit the unilateral\ncancellation of a council.\n The TEAM Act, and similar ideas are certainly not the answer. I am\nconcerned, however, that past labor-management relations will not\ncontinue to serve us well either. As a nation, we now find ourselves\ninvolved in a global economy competing with other countries, not other\ncompanies. In addition, more and more of our trade is high technology.\nThe era of workers spending all day inserting tab A into slot B is\ncoming to an end. Workers must be better educated and well trained in\nhigh technology.\n With that education, high-tech training and on the job experience,\ntoday's workers have valuable insights and ideas that should be\nwelcomed by their employers. It should be our job to allow the exchange\nof thoughts and ideas to take place but without employees endangering\ntheir employment in the process.\n I sincerely hope that in the future, Congress will, without partisan\nand special interest bias, work to make it easier for employees and\ntheir employers to cooperatively determine the future of their\ncompany.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12422", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "IN HONOR OF ALPHA DELTA KAPPA", "SENATE", "SENATE", "HONORING", "S12422", "S12422", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12422", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12422]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n IN HONOR OF ALPHA DELTA KAPPA\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President. This month we celebrate the fine work\nof Alpha Delta Kappa Sorority. I would like to ask may colleagues to\njoin me in paying tribute to this outstanding international\norganization of women educators.\n Founded in 1947, Alpha Delta Kappa today has nearly 60,000 members in\n2,000 chapters located in towns and cities in every State and around\nthe world in Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. I am\nproud to say that we have eight strong chapters in Rhode Island. All\nthe sorority members have been selected to join the honorary society by\npeers who have recognized their contributions in establishing high\nteaching standards and in promoting excellence and dedication. As a\nchampion of teachers throughout my life, I am delighted to see these\nessential women receive the praise they deserve.\n Let no one think that the Alpha Delta Kappa members rest on their\nlaurels. They make a major contribution to the lives of others through\nthe sponsorship of educational scholarships and altruistic projects. In\nthe past 2 years alone, members have given at the grassroots level over\n$3.9 million in monetary gifts, over $1.1 million in scholarships, and\nhave provided over 1.3 million hours of volunteer service. I am\nparticularly pleased that seven young women from foreign countries are\neach awarded $10,000 scholarships to study for 1 year in colleges and\nuniversities throughout the United States.\n Through is altruistic projects, members of Alpha Delta Kappa have\ncontributed nearly $1 million to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital,\nand, since 1991, $100,000 to the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. This is a\nremarkable contribution.\n In 1997, Alpha Delta Kappa will celebrate its golden anniversary.\nThis, however, is the month we take time to pay tribute to the\noutstanding contributions of its many members to the betterment of\neducation in our Nation and other parts of the world.\nCongratulations.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12423-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT AND DISTINGUISHED SERVICE BY WILLIAM DANTE BUCCI", "SENATE", "SENATE", "RECOGNIZING", "S12423", "S12424", "[{\"name\": \"Rick Santorum\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12423", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12423-S12424]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT AND DISTINGUISHED SERVICE BY\n WILLIAM DANTE BUCCI\n\n Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have been made aware of plans\nto honor Mr. William Dante Bucci next month and I would like to take\nthe opportunity to share with my colleagues the outstanding achievement\nand distinguished service he has displayed.\n Not only has Mr. Bucci displayed a high level of professional\nachievement and concern for his community, but he has also celebrated\nhis family's heritage. Mr. Bucci was born in Philadelphia, PA, and has\nbeen a member of the Order Sons of Italy in America, Grand Lodge of\nPennsylvania, since 1 year of age. In fact, Bill is the longest\ncontinuously active member of the Ivy Ridge Lodge 251.\n William Bucci is a 1974 cum laude graduate of Roman Catholic High\nSchool of Philadelphia, where he earned the Thomas E. Cahill Merit\nAward for outstanding achievement as a senior. Bill then earned a\ncongressional appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy receiving a\nbachelor of science degree in 1982.\n Following his graduation from the Naval Academy and his naval\nservice, Bill then demonstrated a high level of achievement in the\nworld of business. After being Market Executive of the Year with the\nXerox Corp. in Philadelphia, Bill was named a full partner and first\nvice president at age 29 in the brokerage firm Smith, Barney, Harris\nUpham & Co., Inc. William is a three-time winner of Smith, Barney's\nBroker of the Year Award and is a life member of their President's\nClub. In 1992, William joined Shearson Lehman Bros. as a senior vice\npresident. Following the purchase of Shearson Lehman Bros. by Smith,\nBarney, Bill was recruited by Prudential Securities Inc. in Bala\nCynwyd, PA, where he is now a senior vice president.\n William Bucci's commitment to serving his community is well known to\nthose that have had the opportunity to interact with him. Bill has\nserved as junior varsity basketball coach for the Cardinals of\nDougherty High School in the Philadelphia Catholic League. In addition,\nhe was a head coach for 10 years in the Philadelphia Archdiocese CYO\nprogram. Not surprisingly, Bill has been recognized by his coaching\npeers as the league's all-star coach on three different occasions.\n William Bucci's connection to the Order Sons of Italy in America is\nwell cemented. He is the grandson of Francesco Bucci, past president of\nthe Giulio Caesar Lodge 612 O.S.I.A., and Giuseppe Mercurio, a founder\nand charter member of the Ivy Ridge Lodge 251, O.S.I.A. His list of\ncredentials in the Order Sons of Italy in America is truly impressive.\nFor instance, Bill has served or currently does serve in the following\ncapacities: third vice president for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;\na trustee, O.S.I.A. Charitable\n\n[[Page S12424]]\n\nand Education Trust; member, Pennsylvania State Finance Committee;\nserved as chairman for the Purple Aster Awards Ball souvenir program\nbook for 1995; member, national membership committee; member, national\nfund raiser committee; ex-officio delegate to the national convention;\nthree-term past president, Ivy Lodge 251, of which he has served as\nvice president and as trustee.\n Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to say that William Dante Bucci\nis a constituent of mine. Mr. Bucci has been, and will continue to be,\na community leader and standard bearer for Italian Americans.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12423", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "METRIC CONVERSION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12423", "S12423", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12423", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12423]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n METRIC CONVERSION\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, As my colleagues have heard me say\nmany times before, The United States is the only industrialized country\nin the world that has not converted to the metric system of\nmeasurement. I ask my colleagues to imagine what we are missing by\nbeing so out of step with the rest of the world.\n The answer is basic: The United States stands to gain untold\nmillions--possibly billions--in export trade we are currently losing\nbecause our non-metric products literally do not fit into international\nmarkets. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that U.S. exports\ncould be increased by up to 20 percent by offering metric-sized goods\nto international markets. In a booklet published by the Small Business\nAdministration [SBA] for small businesses considering converting to the\nmetric system, the SBA cites three examples of the trade problems\ncaused by the production of nonmetric goods.\n Saudi Arabia rejected a shipment of American-made appliances because\nthe power cords were 6 feet long rather than the 2 meter length\nrequired by Saudi law.\n A Middle Eastern company was forced to rewire all electronic\nequipment imported from the United States because standard American\nwire sizes are different from international standards.\n Countries around the world have great difficulty finding American\nlumber companies that will produce lumber in metric lengths for use in\nthe construction.\n In that regard, I strongly believe that the Federal Government should\nlead by example and conduct its business, including all procurement, in\nthe metric system. By doing business and thereby promoting the metric\nsystem, our Government would send a very important and badly needed\nsignal to American businesses and our trade partners around the world\nthat as a nation we are back on track with the conversion process that\nhas already taken place in the rest of the modern world.\n During the closing weeks of this Congress, I had the pleasure of\nworking with Senator Glenn and Senator Hollings in an effort to\nmoderate antimetric legislation that came before the Senate. Senator\nHollings and I have worked together on this issue for some time--\nparticularly in the all important area of trade. I am confident he will\ncontinue this fight in the years to come.\n Senator John Glenn--a pioneer in space exploration--is a man of\nscience, a man of the future. During floor debate on unfunded mandates\nlegislation a the beginning of the 104th Congress he gave a most\neloquent defense of the metric system. The metric system is an integral\npart of both science and our future. I hope Senator Glenn will take my\nplace and bring his knowledge and experience to the fight.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12424-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HONORING THE LAWRENCES ON THEIR 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "HONORING", "S12424", "S12424", "[{\"name\": \"John Ashcroft\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12424", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12424]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HONORING THE LAWRENCES ON THEIR 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY\n\n Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of\nAmerica. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families\ncontribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples\nmarried today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it\nis both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the\ncommitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating\nsuccessfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity.\nThese characteristics make our country strong.\n For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Sherlie and Beulah\nLawrence of Maplewood, MO, who, on November 9, 1996, will celebrate\ntheir 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I took forward to\nthe day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Sherlie and Beulah's\ncommitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to\nbe saluted and recognized.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12424-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HONORING THE MUNSONS ON THEIR 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "HONORING", "S12424", "S12424", "[{\"name\": \"John Ashcroft\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12424", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12424]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HONORING THE MUNSONS ON THEIR 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY\n\n Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of\nAmerica. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families\ncontribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples\nmarried today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it\nis both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the\ncommitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating\nsuccessfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity.\nThese characteristics make our country strong.\n For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Ed and Marty\nMunson of Marshfield, MO, who, on November 11, 1996, will celebrate\ntheir 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to\nthe day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Ed and Marty's commitment\nto the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted\nand recognized.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12424-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "PRESIDENTIAL AWARD", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12424", "S12425", "[{\"name\": \"Mark O. Hatfield\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12424", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12424-S12425]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n PRESIDENTIAL AWARD\n\n Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on Wednesday, September 25, 1996,\none of my favorite Oregon institutions was honored by the President of\nthe United States. Saturday Academy of Oregon received the Presidential\nAward for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering\nMentoring. The award was presented to Kathryn Gail Whitney, executive\ndirector of the academy since 1983, in a ceremony in the Indian Treaty\nRoom of the Old Executive Office Building. I am pleased to add my\ncongratulations to this deserving organization.\n This award includes a $10,000 grant and a Presidential commemorative\ncertificate. It is given to individuals and institutions which have\nencouraged minorities, women, and persons with disabilities to earn\ndegrees in science, mathematics, and engineering; 10 individuals and 6\ninstitutions were honored this year, the first year in which these\nawards were presented.\n Saturday Academy is a private, nonprofit precollege educational\nprogram established in 1983, and based at the Oregon Graduate Institute\nof Science & Technology in the Portland, OR, metropolitan area. Four\nother Saturday Academy centers are located in Oregon. The academy\nenlists accomplished professionals from industry, higher education, and\ncommunity agencies to create hands-on classes and apprenticeships for\nmotivated 6th-through 12th-grade students. While the program focuses on\nscience, math, and technology, instruction includes arts and humanities\nas well.\n The academy began in 1983 with three classes: Materials science,\nelectronics, and large computer systems. Even while growing rapidly,\nSaturday Academy has worked for inclusiveness. This is an important\ngoal in science and math education--we need strategies to encourage\ngreater participation of women and minorities. Saturday Academy has\nworked diligently to increase the enrollment of young women--it now has\nan even enrollment of both sexes.\n Gail Whitney's arrival as executive director when the program was\nonly months old, brought a change in recruitment strategy. Academy\npress releases began to stress the search for motivated students rather\nthan gifted ones. The change has been significant. Experience shows\nthat students who may not fit a school system's gifted criteria are\ndesigning electrical components or operating a business. A child who is\nquiet or reserved in the larger classroom may thrive in the hands-on\nenvironment of eight peers.\n In 1983, the academy's roster listed 9 classes and 71 students. The\nfollowing February, the figures increased to 19 classes and 200\nstudents. The 10th anniversary year of the program, 1993, found 40\nclasses per term being offered. During the 1995-96 school year there\n\n[[Page S12425]]\n\nwere 7,692 participants for a total of 214,000 instructional hours; 800\nprofessionals were involved as instructors or mentors.\n Mr. President, Gail Whitney and the founders of Saturday Academy\nrepresent one of the best models I have seen for cooperative private-\npublic efforts to enhance science and math education. Meaningful reform\nin science and math education has been at the top of my priority list\nfor many of my years in Congress. I am thrilled to see this deserving\nrecognition for one of Oregon's finest efforts.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12424", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12424", "S12424", "[{\"name\": \"Rick Santorum\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12424", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12424]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL\n\n Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to\nprovisions in the recently approved omnibus appropriations bill dealing\nwith electronic benefits transfer [EBT].\n In the waning hours of the negotiations on the omnibus appropriations\nbill, legislative language was inserted--sections 664 and 665--\nproviding for the delivery of EBT services by the Federal Government.\nIn effect, the provision nullified an August 13, 1996, D.C. Circuit\nCourt of Appeals decision involving the procurement process in an EBT\ninitiative under the direction of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.\n While I supported passage of the omnibus appropriations bill, I have\nvery serious concerns with the impact of the EBT language and, as a\nresult of these provisions becoming law, remain concerned with the\ndirection of EBT. The financial ramifications and impact associated\nwith providing benefits through EBT are enormous. The fact these\nprovisions were added to the bill and became law with virtually no\ncongressional oversight is extremely troublesome. I am uncomfortable\nwith Congress overturning court decisions and ultimately directing\nmultimillion dollar contracts without review. These provisions on EBT\nhave not been reviewed in detail by the committees of jurisdiction nor\nhave they been subject to hearings.\n Mr. President, throughout my service in Congress, I have focused\nconsiderable legislative effort in the area of social policy, and I'm\nvery pleased to have played a role in the development and direction of\nthe landmark welfare policies that became law earlier this year. The\nefficiencies associated with delivering social service benefits through\nEBT have been an integral part of welfare reform discussions over the\npast 5 years. And with the enactment of the landmark welfare reform\nlaw, the need to develop a comprehensive EBT policy becomes all the\nmore important.\n If Congress is to better manage the delivery of Federal services and\nbenefits, we must start with EBT. Throughout the remainder of this year\nand into the next Congress, I intend to address this issue, not only\nwith the Secretary of the Treasury, but also with the leadership of the\ncommittees of jurisdiction. It is imperative that Congress develop a\ncomprehensive EBT policy with comment and direction from the Banking,\nAgriculture, Finance, and Governmental Affairs Committees, all who have\nmajor interests in this area.\n Mr. President, with the recent passage of the omnibus appropriations\nbill, I wanted to take a moment of Senate business to express my very\nserious concerns with the language on EBT and the impact that this will\nhave on the future delivery of social service benefits. I appreciate\nthe attention of my colleagues today and encourage your interest and\ninvolvement.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12425", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "REFLECTIONS ON U.S. AGRICULTURAL POLICY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12425", "S12435", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1627\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2029\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12425", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12425-S12435]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n REFLECTIONS ON U.S. AGRICULTURAL POLICY\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to serve\non the Committee on Agriculture since 1981. The agricultural community\nin Alabama and the Nation, while small in number, is a considerable\npart of our economy. In fact in Alabama, agriculture and forestry are\nthe largest sectors of the economy.\n Therefore, I felt compelled to serve on this committee. It has been\nextremely difficult for most of the newspaper reporters in Alabama to\ncover the action of this committee. I felt at times that my press\nsecretary needed to give them a map to find the Senate Agriculture\nCommittee hearing room. The issues are complicated and few reporters\nhave an understanding of the basics of farm policy. As a general rule,\nthis accounts for the sparsity of news stories about agriculture in\nAlabama and Washington newspapers.\n In addition to farm programs, the committee had jurisdiction over a\ngreat number of rural development programs, rural electrification, and\nrural water programs that are an extremely important aspect that can\nimprove the daily lives of the millions of people that live in rural\nareas of this Nation.\n The agricultural community is considerably better off today than when\nI came to the Senate in 1979. During my years on the Agriculture\nCommittee, we have been able to craft foreign policy which provides\nmarket stability and allows U.S. farmers to aggressively pursue\ninternational markets. At the same time, these farm programs have\ndramatically reduced the cost to the U.S. Treasury. And the most\nimportant part that is so often overlooked, American farms provide a\nstable supply of food for American families at a lower cost than any\npart of the world. Legislation passed by the Committee is often called\nfarm bills. It would be more appropriately entitled Food Safety and\nConsumer Protection Legislation.\n\n Farm Bills\n\n In 1981, I had my first experience with the Congress' major farm\nauthorization bill. With this bill, Members who strongly supported\nagriculture sought to expand foreign markets for U.S. exports and to\nprotect them from selective embargoes. But Alabama's chief priority was\nthe preservation of the peanut program. That year, the USDA and a\nnumber of Senators pushed for its elimination. But Alabama's farmers\nhad just suffered 2 years of droughts, and they were already in a\ndifficult situation. The program's proponents managed to push the\nprogram through the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 12 to 4.\nHowever, it was defeated on the floor of the Senate, and supporters had\nto work in the back rooms to devise the Heflin-Warner compromise. This\neffort succeeded. On the Senate floor, Senator Nunn credited me with\nthe compromise:\n\n * * * I think the Senator from Alabama has worked longer\n and harder on the peanut program than anyone I know in this\n body. He has spent literally hundreds of hours working\n diligently to protect the program that is of vital interest\n to the State of Alabama and also the State of Georgia as well\n as other states.\n * * * I have been following his lead on this issue as well\n as many other farm issues, and I thank him for an exceptional\n job all the way through.\n\n However, it was just that--a compromise--and I was not entirely\nplease with the outcome. For instance, although the 1981 farm bill\nestablished farm-based poundage quotas, increased loan supports, and a\ncost-of-production price escalator, it technically eliminated the\npeanut allotment program.\n During the farm bill debate, Alabama's delegation was also very\nconcerned with improving soybean production and exports. Over the\nprevious few years, the U.S. share of the world soybean export market\nhad dropped from 90 percent to 70 percent. Despite this drop, U.S.\nsoybean production had tripled, but only because planting had tripled.\nCrop yields had not improved, and export policies were lagging. In\nfact, if the situation did not change, the United States would only\ncreate a domestic surplus of soybeans. So I introduced a bill to create\nthe Research Soybean Institute, which would examine ways to improve\nproduction, exporting, and marketing. The institute would also address\nproblems such as the cyst nematode parasite--and other issues like it.\nThese provisions became a part of the 1981 farm bill.\n With Senator Melcher's help, we passed another amendment to the farm\nbill which required that imported meats be held to the same inspection\nstandards as domestic meats. Specifically, we sought to prohibit horse\nand kangaroo meats from being sold as ``beef.'' Clearly, this language\nhad a dual purpose, to protect the interests of the cattle ranchers,\nand to ensure that consumers who bought hamburgers actually ate beef.\n When the farm bill debate came to an end, I objected strongly to the\nadministration's substitute bill. Although it retained the peanut\ncompromise, the kangaroo and horse meat language, and the soybean\ninstitute, this bill has gone too far. This was the first attack on the\nfarmer during my career; he had become a victim of the USDA's fiscal\nausterity in the Republican administration's sometimes too broad\nattempts to cut domestic spending in the wrong places. I objected\nchiefly to the commodity provisions, especially loan levels and target\nprice figures, but I voted for the bill anyway because I thought it was\nmore important to have a 4-year bill than none at all.\n But implementation of this farm bill proved nearly as difficult,\nespecially for peanuts. The USDA tried to enact regulations to cut the\npeanut poundage quotas. Its cuts would only hurt the small quota\nholders who could not afford the overhead of production. Supporters\ncontracted the USDA, and cited the provisions in the peanut language\nwhich required a fair and equitable system for quota reduction.\nTargeting the small farmer like this was--* * * a misinterpretation of\nboth the spirit and intent of the Congress if not an outright violation\nof the letter of the law itself. The USDA agreed to back off until it\nhad received clarification of congressional intent.\n The years following this farm bill also saw difficulties for the\ncotton program. In 1984, the administration sought a freeze in target\nprices, which it won. I blocked the bill when it came to the Senate\nfloor, and I set conditions on this freeze. Specifically, I succeeded\nin setting the inventory carryover trigger for the paid diversion of\ncotton at 2.7 rather than 4 million bales in 1985, increasing the rate\nfrom $0.25 to $0.30 per pound if this inventory reached 4.1 million\nbales, and $0.35 if it reached 4.7 million bales. I also secured\nassurances for an extra $500 million in CCC export credit loan\nguarantees for 1984, including $100 million specifically for cotton,\nand $2 billion in 1985. Other successes which came out of this bill\nincluded changes to the FmHA disaster loan programs, including\nincreased funding and increased loan ceilings, eligibility expansion to\ncounties adjacent to declared disaster areas, extension of application\ndeadlines to 8 months, extension of repayments limits by 8 years, and\nscheduling of interest rates to their original level or the current\nprevailing rate, whichever was lower. Sometimes it's like dealing with\na mule--you have to use a 2 by 4 to get its attention.\n When the next farm bill around in 1985, we introduced the Southern\nAgriculture Act of 1985 preemptively to save the peanut and cotton\nprograms. Specifically, it would increase peanut poundage quotas to the\nexisting level for the national, edible market. I also sought to allow\nfor double cropping, conservation tillage, and other ideas endemic to\nthe South. But these programs represented only one small part of\noverall farm policy; the export-import programs were certainly as\ngreat. I had hoped that the United States might also be able to\nincrease its share of foreign markets.\n The House Agriculture Committee adopted my Southern Agriculture Act\n\n[[Page S12426]]\n\nthat year without changes, making it, for a time, part of the farm\nbill. House Chairman Kika de la Garza of Texas gave me considerable\nsupport. Incorporation of the peanut program was eminently logical\nbecause it was the only program which had actually made the Government\nmoney over the previous 2 years. The Senate Agriculture Committee also\nadopted much of my measure, but I knew that it would be difficult to\npass it through the full Senate. The Senate committee also incorporated\nlanguage proposed by Senator Dole which I cosponsored to create a\nNational Commission on Agriculture Policy into the farm bill.\n When the Senate committee passed its version of the bill, I was\ncertainly pleased that it included the Southern Agriculture Act, but I\nwas disappointed with its export provisions. As I saw it, the problem\nwith U.S. farm exports had been that the agriculture secretaries had\nnot used the tools Congress created for them to implement an aggressive\nexport promotional program.\n In fact, when the conference committee reported its version of the\nbill, I was struck that it deceived and betrayed soybean farmers. The\nconferees had dropped our amendment to prevent the U.S. Government from\nproviding loans or grants to foreign soybean producers. The committee\nhad also changed another of our amendments to establish a marketing\nloan without lowering soybean loan rates. I intended the measure, which\nhad passed the Senate, to authorize the Agriculture Secretary to\nimplement a plan to increase competitiveness of American soybeans in\nforeign markets. The conference version, however, effectively\nlegislated lower soybean prices for the farmer since it lowered the\nloan rates. American taxpayer dollars were being used to enhance the\ncompetitive capability of major soybean competitor countries such as\nBrazil and Argentina.\n In fact, I voted against the 1985 farm bill coming out of conference.\nI believe that it effectively legislated lower commodity prices. The\ncredit provisions were also unforgiving. FmHA loan availability\ndecreased, and foreclosures were therefore likely to increase, I\nbelieved.\n However, I was pleased that the bill maintained the peanut program,\nincluded better research titles, and addressed conservation.\nSpecifically, the bill included the Conservation Reserve Program, and\nthe swamp-buster and sod-buster provisions, which would allow for\nbetter long-term farming.\n In hindsight, though, one of the most important provisions, if not\nthe most important, was the establishment and implementation of the\ncotton marketing loan. It is generally understood that U.S.\nagricultural commodities must be competitive in the world market if the\nsector is to be economically viable.\n Some 95 percent of cotton entering world trade does so with the\nbenefit of a subsidy of one kind or another. The net effect is a world\nprice which is often below the cost of production in most, if not all,\nexporting countries. In shaping cotton policy to address this kind of\nglobal competition, we had to decide whether to fashion a program which\nwould enable U.S. cotton to compete aggressively or, instead, assume\nthe role of residual supplier.\n Until implementation of the marketing loan in 1985, U.S. cotton was\ngenerally relegated to the role of residual supplier. In 1985, however,\nwe made a decision to meet subsidized competition head on. The\nestablishment of the marketing loan has served to accomplish several\nfundamental marketing objectives: First, permits U.S. commodities to\nmeet price competition, second, avoids excessive stock accumulations,\nthird, allows producers to market commodities over a period of time,\nrather than dumping the entire crop on the market at harvest time and\nfourth, serves as a safety net under producer income.\n I am proud of the cotton marketing loan and believe it has become the\ncornerstone of the U.S. cotton program. The indisputable success in the\nindustry supports this assertion as the marketing loan has spurred\ndomestic mill consumption and aided exports. For instance, the\nmarketing loan is responsible for: reversing a 26-year decline in\nofftake of U.S. cotton; reversing a 43-year decline in U.S. mill cotton\nconsumption; and reversing a 70-year decline in cotton's share of U.S.\nmill fiber consumption.\n When the Senate considered its version of the 1986 tax reform bill, I\nstrongly supported an amendment to restore provisions which allowed\nfarmers to average their incomes over several years. It made up for\nrevenue losses, which were estimated at $66 million, by repealing a tax\nbreak on wealthy, foreign real estate investors in the United States.\nSince there had been an increasing amount of foreign investor\nspeculation in U.S. property, particularly in farmland, I thought it\nwas appropriate to compensate for the revenue losses through this\nsource. Another amendment the Senate adopted would refund unused\ninvestment tax credits to farmers. Specifically, the language provided\nfor farmers to apply the credits against previous years' taxes at $0.50\nper dollar. It also established yearly limits for the refund. The\nauthors of this tax reform bill sought to eliminate credits for the\nfuture. However, since farmers were heavily capitalized with the high\nlevel of mechanization of modern farming, Congress needed to make tax\nreform a little fairer for agriculture by permitting farmers to trade\nin some of their unused tax credits for cash.\n In 1986, critics of the cotton program maintained that it involved\nmillion dollar payments to large corporations. But this was an unfair\ncharacterization of the program. These large payments resulted from the\nSecretary's discretion; they were not mandated by the program itself.\nIn fact, the program had ameliorated price reductions from domestic\nsurpluses and improved sales overseas due to U.S. cotton prices that\nwere on par with world prices for the first time in nearly 2 years.\nCompetitive prices should provide the commodity with a turnaround.\n In 1987, I introduced the farmers recovery tax bill to restore the\nincome averaging price, investment tax credits, and capital gains, all\nof which had been repealed in the 1986 tax reform bill. As in the case\nof the amendments which I supported in 1986, these provisions applied\nexclusively to farmers. Before the passage of that bill, it had\nappeared that our tax policy was the only policy that provided some\nequity or incentive to the agriculture and timber sectors, but to\ncompound the economic woes of rural America, the Tax Reform Act of 1986\nrepealed provisions of the tax laws that were beneficial to these areas\nof our economy.\n When the 1990 farm bill came before the Congress, President Bush's\nadministration sought to cut the cotton and peanut programs, but it\nfailed. We also won a marketing loan for soybeans, specifically to\nincrease America's international competitiveness in this market. Last,\nthe bill included provisions we designed to provide funding for rural\nfirefighting and to double the amount the Government could spend on the\ndevelopment of rural water and sewer systems.\n As in 1985, I introduced the Southern Agriculture Act to reauthorize\nthe cotton and peanut programs. The administration had proposed a 10-\npercent cut in these programs, but this bill would maintain the 1985\nbill's statutes. What could the farmer buy that cost 90 percent of what\nit did in 1985? Certainly, farm machinery and fertilizer prices had not\ndecreased.\n With regard to the peanut program, Secretary Yeutter's proposed cuts\nwould be devastating. If it had been adopted by Congress, it would not\nonly destroy the peanut farmers, it would also cause a serious\nrecession in the peanut-producing areas of Alabama and other States. At\nthe end of July, the Senate defeated an amendment to implement his\ncuts.\n One of the biggest problems about forging the peanut compromise in\n1990 was the fact that division existed among the country's peanut\nfarmers. Georgia's farmers had split from the rest, and I assumed the\nrole of peacemaker between Georgia's peanut-growers and the rest,\nincluding farmers from Alabama. Notably, my compromise was the first\nsupported by all the grower groups and major peanut product\nmanufacturers.\n The soybean loan included in the bill would serve to combat cheaper\nforeign competition. The loan was something I had fought for since the\n1985 farm bill.\n In 1986, I objected to the Reagan administration's decision to pursue\nthe World Bank's loan to Argentina. Argentina was America's second\ngreatest\n\n[[Page S12427]]\n\ncompetitor in soybeans, and it was able to undercut U.S. prices and\nflood the world markets by directly subsidizing those firms that\nprocess and export soybeans. The World Bank loan would further\nsubsidize competition to the United States--an unfair practice. In\n1987, I attached language to the agricultural trade bill to prohibit\nU.S. subsidies for foreign farmers competing with U.S. farmers. One\nissue that had brought more complaints and more attention from Alabama\nfarmers is the Government subsidies that enhanced the competitiveness\nof agricultural producers in countries such as Brazil and Argentina.\nSadly enough, many of these subsidies were provided not by the\ngovernments of these countries, but rather by the U.S. Government.\n At the end of 1987, I attached a soybean marketing program to the\nSenate budget reconciliation bill. This amendment would revive language\nthat I had attached to the 1985 farm bill, but the conferees had\neffectively killed the provision by leaving it to the Secretary's\ndiscretion. He did not exercise that discretion. The soybean program\ninvolved CCC loans from 1988 through 1990, and I modeled it after my\n1985 cotton program. I hoped that it would be an innovative approach\nthat would provide enough flexibility to the Secretary of Agriculture\nto meet our world competitors on a level playing field. Although it\npassed the Senate shortly later, I had to reintroduce it in 1988. With\na marketing loan, U.S. soybeans will be available on the world market\nat the same price as that made possible by foreign government subsidies\nfor our foreign competitors. At that time, U.S. soybean acreage had\ndropped to a quarter of its 1979 level. Of course, the loan ultimately\nbecame a part of the 1990 farm bill.\n With other provisions I included in the final bill, I sought to\nincrease the farmer's flexibility to plant second crops on program\nplots. This practice is known as double-cropping.\n With the Southern Agriculture Act, we also sought to create a\nSouthern Institute for Agriculture Resource Policy to conduct\nscientific studies on improved farming techniques.\n The committee also approved a proposal to provide Federal matching\nfunds for rural firefighters. The money would go to State forestry\nagencies and volunteers, and it was included in the final version of\nthe bill. My language also proposed a Southern Forest Regeneration\nCenter.\n The final bill included my provisions to expand the Talladega\nNational Forest into Cherokee County and extend an Alabama trail closer\nto the Appalachian Trail.\n The final bill also included our language to create the star schools\nprogram. Through the use of state-of-the-art telecommunications\nequipment, the Star Schools-Medlink program that was passed in the 1990\nfarm bill allows small rural schools or hospitals to be linked with the\nhighest quality educational programs and technology developments of\nother areas. Using this technology in a medical situation, a doctor at\na clinic in a rural area could send moving images of a brain scan to a\nspecialist at a hospital hundreds of miles away.\n The final bill also included language to provide Federal assistance\nfor rural development, including water and sewers, and a loan program\nto aid small, rural businesses. There is no one answer that every\ncommunity can use to achieve economic vitality. However, there are\ncommon threads. First of all, the leadership for rural development must\nbe taken to local community organizations--rural electric cooperatives,\ncounties, economic development district, and other local entities. I\nwas especially proud of these provisions as they were included in the\nfinal version of the bill.\n With Senator Pryor's help, we included language in the 1990 farm bill\nto authorize $15 million for research on poultry diseases and to\nrequire that foreign poultry meet domestic inspection standards.\nHowever, President Bush failed to meet this requirement, arguing that\nit was an impediment to free trade. In fact, he even imposed a 1990\nhiring freeze on inspectors.\n In 1991, peanut farmers faced another problem when the ITC ruled that\n300 million pounds of foreign peanuts be allowed into the American\nmarket--a total equaling 10 percent of the domestic market. I contacted\nthe President to protest this ruling, in some large part because it\nviolated language that I included in the 1990 farm bill to require that\nimports meet the same quality as the domestic product. Chinese peanuts,\nknown to be infected with the striped virus, would be among the\nimports. Further, allowing such a high number into the country would\ncost the government $84 million, according to the USDA. Although he\nreduced the number to 100 million, the President decided to allow the\npeanuts into the country. In 1993, we contacted the trade\nrepresentative to urge inclusion of a provision in NAFTA requiring that\nthe stringent domestic inspection standards be imposed on imports.\n Although farm bills had always been the result of compromise, and\ntherefore were somewhat less than I had wanted, supporters had\nsucceeded in maintaining the commodity programs at an acceptable level\nuntil this year. The 1996 farm bill debate posed a serious threat to\nthe continuation of farm programs, and southern farmers would be\nespecially affected by various proposals.\n From the beginning of last year, the Republicans had pushed for\nelimination of the commodity programs and the price supports. Given the\nsuccesses of these programs, like the cotton program, I cannot\nunderstand the prejudice with which they approached the cuts.\n To pass programs that I believe are worthwhile, I have frequently\ninvolved myself in the strategy which has worked so well for Senators\nover the years. To demonstrate this point, when I saw that the cotton\nprogram was in serious trouble, I offered by support for other programs\nto gain backing for cotton. As I told the American Sheep Industry\nAssociation in June 1994, there isn't much wool in Alabama, but there\nisn't much cotton in Idaho or Montana. But if those of us in\nagriculture didn't work together, we cannot survive the plans to\ndismantle the fundamentals of farming in this country.\n As it came up for review, supporters tried to impress upon Members\nthe importance of the cotton program. The cotton program was designed\nto meet market conditions in the United States and abroad. In 1995, the\nyear that the Republicans tried to eliminate it, the cotton program\nproved itself effective. Although there was a bumper cotton crop, the\nmarket price remained above the target price. Additionally, we stressed\nthat wheat and feed grains account for 50 percent of all farm program\ncosts, and the cotton program cost only 10 percent of the total Federal\nfarm outlays.\n Agriculture had already taken its fair share of cuts. The agriculture\nbudget had dropped from $26 billion in 1985 to just under $10 billion\nin 1995. However, reductions in the peanut program had never resulted\nin Americans paying less for their groceries. The cost is always\nabsorbed by someone in the chain between the producer and the\nsupermarket, and economic studies and history do not suggest that cuts\nwould reduce the price now.\n With agriculture very much in mind, I voted against the Republican\nbudget resolution. This resolution would have cut $8 billion from\nfarming over 5 years. Naturally, I had other concerns when I decided to\noppose the bill including Medicare and Social Security, as well as the\nidea of promising to cut the deficit and taxes.\n After the Senate agriculture committee completed its mark-up on the\nbudget resolution, preliminary estimates for the cuts in the commodity\nprograms totaled $13.3 billion over 7 years. Chairman Lugar's intention\nwas to do his best to eliminate the commodity programs, and he had\nstated his strong opposition for some time.\n Along with others, I continued the fight for the preservation of the\ncotton and peanut programs. Noting that cotton had enjoyed a record\nyear, I promised to introduce a bill to extend that program as written,\nwith just a few changes.\n The average peanut farmer has only 98 acres, whereas the 7 largest\ncorporations that use peanuts to manufacture their products had more\nthan $140 billion in total sales during 1994. It is no coincidence that\nsome Members of Congress who oppose the program just happen to have\nsome of those same corporations in their states. It is these same\ncorporations that stand to be the big winners if the peanut program\nwere eliminated, not the real consumers.\n\n[[Page S12428]]\n\nThe GAO had issued a study which showed that the consumer absorbed a\ncost of $300-$500 million, but the program's opponents misrepresented\nthis study in the last round, arguing that this cost was passed onto\nthe retail consumer. As a matter of fact, in testimony before the House\nAgriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and its Chairman, Charlie\nRose, the GAO testified that the consumer they referenced was the first\npurchaser of peanuts, or the manufacturer. They further testified in\nsubstance that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that any\nreduction in the loan rate would be passed along to the retail\nconsumer.\n Critics who sought to eliminate the peanut program during the 1995\nfarm bill debated used this GAO report as one justification for ending\nthe peanut program. Armed with the earlier GAO testimony,\nrepresentatives from the peanut product manufacturers association were\nasked if any reduction in the loan rate would be passed to the\nconsumer. They responded by stating that loan rate reductions would not\nbe passed along to the consumer, instead, savings would be used to\ndevelop new products.\n The peanut program has served to balance the playing field between\nsmall farmers and multinational corporations. It is bad policy to\neliminate the peanut program only to increase corporate profits at the\nexpense of rural economies and the true consumer who will notice\nabsolutely no difference in the price they pay at the grocery store.\n In September, I introduced the Southern Agriculture Act of 1995 to\nrevise and extend the loan and other programs for cotton, peanuts, and\noilseeds. Under this bill, the cotton program would have been extended\nas written. The 1994 crop had been a record crop in production,\nexports, and total offtake. Many of our competitors had experienced\ninsect infestations causing higher world market prices. As a matter of\nfact, cotton prices had climbed to their highest levels at any time\nsince the Civil War, topping $1 a pound. Therefore, I saw no reason to\nalter a program that was functioning effectively. The peanut program\nwould be slightly changed, with a freeze imposed on the support prices\nat the 1995 crop level. In an effort to address the claims of the\npeanut program's critics, the National Peanut Growers Group adopted a\nseries of program changes to eliminate all taxpayer costs and open the\nprogram to new products. I included many of the NPPA no-net-cost\nreforms into my peanut title, including eliminating the undermarketings\nprovisions. However, from a strategy perspective, I knew that the farm\nbill debate would require a great deal of give and take and felt that\nunder no circumstances should we begin negotiating from our bottom\nline. Since they did not receive price supports, my bill would have\nextended the marketing loans for soybeans and oilseeds. In addition to\nextending the marketing loan, we increased the loan rate from $4.92 a\nbushel to $5.25 a bushel. The lower loan rate had ceased to be an\neffective safety net for oilseed producers. Our title on oilseeds was\nheralded by the American Soybean Association as the best proposal put\nforward for oilseed producers. In the end, a modified version of my\nproposal was adopted and signed into law.\n The reason why I introduced this bill was simply that I utterly\nopposed Chairman Lugar's farm bill. Among other things, his bill would\nhave destroyed the peanut program. However, I believed that 14 of 18\nSenators on the committee favored a peanut bill without a cut in the\nprice support. Because he had such a strong opposition, the chairman\nemployed delay tactics to push the bill back to the reconciliation\ndeadline when the members of the Budget Committee could write the farm\nbill. These Senators were much less sympathetic to the needs of the\nsouthern peanut farmer.\n At that time, certain Senators tried to put an additional assessment\non peanut producers. They were trying to force the farmer to pay for\nthe entire adminstrative cost of the program. However, the Senators who\npushed for this assessment were from wheat States; notably, they did\nnot try to impose the same condition on wheat farmers. However, we\nsecured language which stated that the existing budget deficit\nassessment paid by producers would be targeted to offsetting program\ncosts and no other assessments would then be necessary.\n\n With regard to the ongoing farm bill negotiations, the Agriculture\nchairman continued to refuse meetings, despite the strong bipartisan\nsupport for the peanut program. He knew that he would not get his way,\nbut that was no reason to keep us from meeting to come up with a budget\nbill that saved money but did not destroy the peanut program. In the\nend of committee action that year, the farm provisions included a\npeanut compromise, but I was never consulted. I was shut out of all\ndiscussions about it; the Republicans told me it would be their bill. I\ncould not explain to farmers why these Senators voted for a 7-year\nprogram for wheat, corn, rice, sugar, and other commodities, but\ndecided to kill the peanut program after 5 years.\n Simply stated, this bill would force a disproportionate share of\nagricultural budget cuts on the South. It would have its most profound\nnegative effects on new and old farmers there. Most of the growth in\ncotton production had occurred in the South, but the new cotton program\nwould shut out new farmers from its provisions. This bill required that\nfarmers demonstrate participation in 3 of the previous 5 years in order\nto continue participation in the cotton program. Many of the new cotton\nacres in this program were the result of the successful boll weevil\neradication program. Land once infested with boll weevils had recently\nbeen eradicated, however, the majority of these new acres had not been\nin the program long enough to qualify under these new rules.\nEligibility for participation in the cotton program would be reduced\nnationally by 30 percent, and in Alabama, 38 percent of cotton farmers\nwould be excluded. Furthermore, Buck Johnson, director of the Federal\nFarm Service agency of Georgia, estimated that the Senate's version of\nthe reconciliation bill would put 30 percent of older farmers in the\nSouth out of business.\n In response to being closed out from the historically bipartisan task\nof writing farm legislation, and seeing the unacceptable changes to the\npeanut program, Representative Charlie Rose and I introduced a no-net-\ncost peanut program bill in an effort to preserve a viable program for\npeanut farmers. It would achieve savings by eliminating the standing\n1.35-million-ton floor for the national poundage quota; in fact, the\nHeflin-Rose peanuts program would have saved $43 million more than the\nRepublican plan contained in the reconciliation bill. Under our no-net-\ncost bill, the Agriculture Secretary would set this national poundage\nquota, thereby eliminating undermarketings and limiting disaster\ntransfer payments. By contrast, the Republican plan would reduce the\nsupport price and freeze it for 7 years. The USDA estimated that the\nRepublican plan would immediately reduce peanut farmers' income by 30\npercent. Not only did it cost more, the Republican plan slashed a\npeanut farmer's income by $68 per ton. A study by Auburn University on\nthe impact of potential policy changes in the peanut program found that\na reduction in the support price to $610 per ton, and a reduction in\nthe national poundage quota to 1.1 million tons, would result in a\nnegative impact of $219 million and a loss of almost 3,000 jobs in\nAlabama, Georgia, and Florida. The economic impact and job losses are\nnot limited solely to peanut producers. Under this analysis, the\nwholesale and retail trade, service industries, real estate and\nfinancial sectors are especially hard hit. In fact, nationwide, the\nstudy indicated total job losses of 5,440 and a negative economic\nimpact of $375 million.\n\n The cotton program in the Republican proposal, too, made no sense.\nUnder its provisions, cotton farmers would no longer be paid for the\ncotton they produced. Instead, they would sign a production flexibility\ncontract which would subsidize a farmer, whether or not he produces a\ncrop. These decoupled payments would apply to cotton, rice, wheat,\ncorn, and feed grain producers, and they would actually encourage a\nwheat or corn grower to plant cotton if the world price were high\nenough to justify the switch. The Republican bill provided for 7 years\nof narcotic welfare payments designed to bring about the corporate\ntakeover of agrarian America. This Republican\n\n[[Page S12429]]\n\nproposal would have undermined everything accomplished with respect to\nfarm legislation; it would have eliminated the farmer safety net and\ndisrupted the delicate balance of supply-price stability taken for\ngranted by consumers.\n I commend the President for vetoing this bill. It would have created\na welfare state. the Republicans claimed that they could lower interest\nrates by balancing the budget, but ironically, their farm bill raised\ninterest rates solely on CCC borrowers. They also claimed that they\nwanted farm programs to be more market oriented, but it removed the 8-\nmonth-loan extension for cotton. Further, their failure to pass\nlegislation left farmers with no clear direction for the upcoming\nplanting season, and, therefore, banks would not give farmers loans for\nthis year's crops.\n At the end of last year, Representative Rose and I introduced another\nno-net-cost peanut program that would be funded by an assessment on\nimported peanuts and revenue from NAFTA and GATT. This bill would have\nmaintained the $678-per-pound-quota rate. It would also assure that\nrevenue from NAFTA and GATT would pay for the program rather than\nreducing farm income. Last, the bill would require that imported\npeanuts meet the same high quality standards as domestic peanuts,\nensuring that they were not grown with chemicals and pesticides banned\nin the United States.\n Clearly, the Congress had failed rural America by not passing a farm\nbill. By including, historically, stand-alone-farm legislation in the\nbroad Republican proposal to balance the budget, farmers and rural\nAmerica became hostage to a myriad of issues culminating with a\nPresidential veto. As a result, farmers were left without congressional\ndirection for the upcoming planting season and were anxiously awaiting\na new farm law. This necessity had become most pressing at the\nbeginning of this year. Without a farm bill, the Agriculture Secretary\nwould be forced to implement the 1949 Agriculture Act. That law\nprovided a formula based on parity with the standard of living in 1949.\nThe difference in the value of the dollar and the standard of living\nbetween 1949 and 1996 would create an explosion in the price of food.\n\n But fearful of efforts to resurrect the freedom-to-farm bill, I\npointed out that its provisions to guarantee payments to farmers\nwhether they produced a crop or not was fundamentally flawed. In times\nof high market prices, the program would provide a bonus check, and it\nwould not be sufficient in times of low market prices. It is\nunconscionable to make these kinds of payments in times of high market\nprices, especially when we are reducing school lunches and other\nessential programs.\n Ultimately, the Senate passed a modified version of the farm\nprovisions that had been contained in the Republican reconciliation\nbill. I voted for it, because we were able to make marginal\nimprovements in the bill and, therefore, I felt that the good\noutweighed the bad. Most importantly, the Senate version of this bill\nreinstated permanent law. By doing so, the inclusion of permanent law\nensures that Congress must again address farm laws rather than simply\nallowing them to expire. Republican lawmakers had intended the\ndecoupled, fixed-but-declining payments to farmers to be the price paid\nfor eliminating farm programs. Congressional Democrats, on the other\nhand, believed that a stable and abundant food supply to be in the\nnational interest and, therefore, refused to turn our back on American\nfarmers. The inclusion of permanent law was an enormous victory for\nDemocrats thus ensuring our commitment to farming families and the role\nthey play in our society.\n Additionally, I was able to beat, soundly, efforts by a freshman\nSenator to kill the peanut program and to keep a 5-percent penalty for\nthe use of the loan program out of the bill. Opponents of the peanut\nprogram had conspired to include this last provision to penalize\nproducers who put their peanuts into the loan. The provision was\nremoved from consideration due to my strong objections.\n During conference, the committee fought off a number of detrimental\npeanut provisions. I successfully fought off a House provision to lower\nthe loan rate another 5 percent if a producer put his peanuts under\nloan. If this language had passed the rate would have dropped to\n$579.50 per ton; we worked to maintain it at $610. I also fought off\nanother House provision to allow unlimited cross-county sale of\npeanuts. Instead, the committee adopted a compromise to allow 40\npercent transfers after 5 years. Under the House-passed version,\nproducers would have to pay an additional assessment to cover program\ncosts if any at the end of the year. Further, the shellers' assessment\nhad been exempted by House Republicans from offsetting program costs\neven though they benefit from the program. However, we were able to\narrange this so the shellers' assessment will also go to offsetting the\ncosts, which will protect the producers from having an unlimited\npossibility for increased assessments. As far as the pool compliance\nlanguage is concerned, the House bill would exempt the profits from\nadditional peanuts from going to cover peanut program losses. This was\nchanged to the Senate version that would permit additional gains from\nbuyback and redemption to be used to offset program costs. This change\nwould also reduce the possibility of the need for increased assessments\non producers.\n\n Problems with the overall farm bill included: It did not provide a\nsafety net for farmers and it made payments regardless of price, but it\ndid give farmers something to work with as they prepare for planting\nseason; the peanut language would cut farmers' income; but cotton came\nout fairly well, specifically preserving the marketing loan, and back\npayments would come soon, which would help weather-damaged cotton\nfarmers.\n Administration: In the early 1980's, the greatest problem facing\nfarmers was the 20-percent or higher interest rates. Most farmers who\nborrowed money to finance their crops in 1980 borrowed the money when\ninterest rates were already high, then they lost money because of the\ndrought. I arranged meetings with Reagan's Agriculture Secretary Block\nto impress this point upon him.\n During 1982, I fought the Reagan administration's plan to subject\nagriculture to FTC control in the Commerce Committee. American farmers\nwere having a tough enough time making ends meet without having to deal\nwith yet another layer of bureaucrats in Washington, DC, meddling in\ntheir affairs.\n I strongly supported the recent reorganization of the USDA. During\n1994, the Agriculture Committee considered a bill to facilitate the\nreorganization. The bill would reform the administrative functions, and\nreassign sub-Cabinet officers by mission, reduce the number of agencies\nfrom 43 to 29, and it would consolidate country offices in favor of\none-stop shopping centers. Through this effort, the USDA hoped to\nreduce staff and cut costs. Although much of this reorganization could,\nand did, take place on the regulatory level, the committee wanted to be\ncertain to work out any legislation that might become necessary. Given\nconcerns about the deficit, the time had clearly come to reduce the\nsize and cost of the USDA in favor of a more efficient department. In\nthe final days of the 103d Congress, a USDA reorganization bill was\npassed creating a more streamlined and efficient Department of\nAgriculture.\n Disaster aid/crop insurance: I have always done my best to pay\nattention to the needs of farmers in times of natural disasters in\nAlabama. In 1979, we had a drought and Hurricane Frederick. In 1980, we\nhad an even worse drought. In 1982, interest rates forced me to request\nAgriculture Secretary Block to initiate the Economic Emergency Loan\nProgram. The same year, I urged Block to change a FmHA regulation\nrequiring the rescheduling of loan at the cripplingly high rates of the\nday. I testified before the Forestry Subcommittee to warn of the impact\nof these rates. In 1982, I also fought to save the NWS agriculture\nprogram during Commerce Committee action. The farm weather forecasting\nservice saved American farmers more than $750 million each year in the\nproduction costs of the major agricultural commodities of cotton, corn,\nsoybeans, livestock, wheat, and rice, but it only cost $1.2 million.\nThe committee approved a bill I cosponsored to combat these high\ninterest rates on farms. The bill would extend the economic emergency\nloan\n\n[[Page S12430]]\n\nprogram for a year and create an individual evaluation program to\nreschedule existing FmHA loans at their original interest rates, rather\nthan the high rates of 1982. I also called a farm crisis meeting in\nMontgomery to discuss interest rates and other problems facing the\nState's farmers. In 1983, the FmHA ran out of money to pay for its\noperating loans in 17 States, including Alabama. I urged the USDA to\nreallocate the money, threatening legislative action, the USDA\ncomplied. Spring freezes also plagued farmers in 1983. Near the year's\nend, I sponsored a measure to disregard payment-in-kind acreage in\neligibility determination for natural disaster emergency loans. The\nexisting program required that a farmer suffer a 30-percent loss to be\neligible. However, payment-in-kind acreage would not count in these\nestimates, so they were frequently inaccurate. In 1984, the Senate\npassed a bill I cosponsored to establish a 15-member special task force\non agricultural credit to ensure its availability at reasonable\ninterest rates. I noted a survey of bankers, many of whom believed that\nfarmers would default on their loans. Further, 100,000 farmers would be\nforced out of business that year, and the statistics indicated that\nhalf of family farmers would disappear in less than a generation. In\n1985, I emphasized the farm credit crisis in the country, with a farm\ndebt the size of the Federal deficit; the FmHA had not acted to combat\nthe problem--it had $630 million available for Federal loan guarantees\nbut used only $25 million. That same year, I met with Willie Nelson to\nadvise him on how to distribute the proceeds from FarmAid. We had\nanother drought in 1986, which spurred me to begin hearings to\ninvestigate drought cycles in the South and possible ways to handle\nthem.\n\n In 1987, I introduced a bill to save the farm credit system. It would\nhave authorized bonds and the restructuring of the system, including a\ncooling-off period before mergers went into effect. It would protect\nimportant farmers' stockholdings in the system and establish an\nassistance board to financial institutions providing farm loans. I\nintroduced another amendment to protect advanced payment for prepayment\naccounts held by Federal land banks, part of the farm credit system.\nThe amendment would simply have required that money deposited into\nthese advanced payment accounts would immediately, prior to the capital\ndepletion or insolvency of a Federal land bank, be applied as payment\nagainst the borrower's loan.\n Alabama suffered another drought in 1988. I introduced a drought\nassistance bill to mandate emergency aid from the Secretary of\nAgriculture. The bill also included a private water project. It would\nhave created water cooperatives financed by loans or bonds to transport\nwater for irrigation. When conferees finished their report, I\ncriticized their changes to the feed and livestock provisions, but I\nwas pleased that the House had not weakened the peanut provisions.\n\n In 1989, I pushed the Air Force to track hurricanes in the gulf and\nPacific coast States; Hurricane Frederick in 1979, for example, had\ncaused relatively little property damage and loss of life because of\nadvanced warnings. The Air Force agreed to retain the WC-130 program.\n In August of that year, the Senate approved the Rural Partnership Act\nof 1989. The bill strengthened Federal support of State and regional\neconomic programs, or rural electric cooperatives, and of land grant\nuniversity research and extension programs. It was only a modest\nbeginning, but it might be a great help to rural communities.\n That same month, the Senate also approved a disaster relief bill.\nAlabama had another drought in 1990. And we had an unusually rainy\nspring in 1991. With Senator Cochran, I introduced legislation that\nyear to force the President to provide emergency funding. The USDA had\nmade money available through FmHA loans, but the President had not\ndelivered it according to his authority provided by a 1991 supplemental\nappropriations bill. In the fall of that year, I supported the passage\nof a bill to provide aid through FEMA. This bill included language\npractically identical to language I introduced during the 1990 farm\nbill debate to make 65-percent payments to farmers who had suffered 35\npercent or more in losses. After continued contacts with the President,\nhe finally released the disaster money in 1992.\n Winter storms and flooding, as well as a number of tornadoes, plagued\nthe State in 1994. Tropical storm Alberto also caused a great deal of\nflooding that year. I also pushed the disaster assistance amendment to\ninclude funding for flood victims in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida in\nthe fiscal 1995 agriculture appropriations. I also pushed a bill I\nsponsored to authorize funding for flood relief through the Agriculture\nCommittee. The Senate passed this measure unanimously. In fact, the\nvote on flood relief compelled me to miss my chance to act as the\nPresident's personal representative on the 50th anniversary of the\nliberation of Guam; I had served as Marine lieutenant and I was one of\nthe first on the beaches. In 1995, I asked the USDA to extend the\nFederal crop insurance deadline; there were a number of farmers who had\nnot applied. The USDA established this deadline under the previous\nyear's crop insurance bill, but it would not help any farmers who had\nnot applied; they would no longer be eligible for disaster payments.\nWith the passage of Federal crop insurance reform late in 1994, the\nprogram signaled a break from the routine of passing disaster bills.\nWith this new program and approach, I knew there would be a period of\nadjustment. I believed that it was a reasonable request given that\nCongress had only months before passed the crop insurance reform and\nUSDA had not fully implemented the program while expecting farmers to\neducate themselves and embrace the reforms in a very short period of\ntime. The least that could be done was extend the crop insurance sign\nup deadline and allow farmers adequate time to inform themselves of\nthese significant changes regarding disaster assistance.\n\n Hurricanes Erin and Opal passed through Alabama in 1995. I\ncosponsored a Cochran bill to authorize the Agriculture Secretary to\nprovide supplemental crop disaster assistance in addition to benefits\nprovided by the Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994. Cotton producers had\nbeen plagued by a severe drought and worm infestations during the 1995\ncrop. This was particularly disappointing due to the fact that 1994 was\na record year for the U.S. cotton crop. Expectations were high for 1995\nand nationwide plantings were up by as much as 20 percent in some\nStates. While the drought contributed a great deal to the 1995 cotton\ndisaster, the insect infestations were particularly devastating. The\ninsect situation was so bad that the EPA authorized the temporary use\nof the insecticide Pirate to fight the tobacco budworm and beet army\nworm.\n The final blow to cotton farmers was Hurricane Opal. After already\nexperiencing terrible growing conditions in 1995, just prior to\nharvesting what cotton that was left, Opal took care of the cotton that\nthe drought and insects had not.\n Hurricane Opal was a devastating storm, not only for its timing\nregarding cotton farmers, but for all Alabamians in southeast Alabama.\nOpal caught a great deal of structural damage and produced a large\namount of debris. Fortunately, we were able to successfully petition\nthe USDA for assistance under the Emergency Conservation Program [ECP].\nUnder the ECP, Alabamians received approximately $5 million in\nassistance for debris removal and structural repair.\n In an effort to address the problem of annual disaster assistance\nbills, and provide a model for crop insurance reform, in 1993 I began\nmeeting with grower groups to hear their ideas on an effective system\nof crop insurance. In this endeavor, the National Cotton Council was\nparticularly helpful.\n The message from farmers was that the cost of production was\ncontinuing to rise, cotton prices were declining or flat at best, and\ndisaster assistance was triggered only by production or yield losses.\n As a result of these roundtable meetings, I introduced the Farmers'\nRisk Management Act of 1994. This legislation called on the Federal\nCrop Insurance Corporation to offer producers the option of a cost-of-\nproduction system which would be based upon each individual producer's\nactual cost of production. This bill would have also allowed a producer\nto choose between using his actual yields and his farm program yields\nin determining his crop insurance yields.\n\n[[Page S12431]]\n\n Many of the ideas put forth in this legislation were rolled into the\nFederal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994. As a matter of fact, the\nHeflin proposal on a cost-of-production system was used to design an\nincome-protection pilot program that is being implemented this year.\n This new approach will cover farmers when gross income falls below\nestablished limits. This pilot program creates a system that would\nguard against yield losses and low harvest prices.\n The implementation of this pilot program could not have come at a\nmore important time. This first year's experience with the catastrophic\ncoverage under the new crop insurance reforms has proven to be\ninadequate. More importantly, though, after the 1996 farm bill and its\nuncertain future effects on American farmers, we find ourselves faced\nwith the possible phase-out of farm programs. It is, therefore,\nabsolutely essential that we have a reliable crop insurance plan that\nwill provide some type of safety net for producers. The significance of\nthis new approach is that it addresses fluctuations in price, where the\ncurrent crop insurance program only takes into account losses from\nreduced yields.\n I am proud of these efforts made on behalf of trying to forge a new\nand more effective direction in regard to crop insurance. It is my hope\nthat this pilot program will grown and be implemented on a national\nlevel.\n In 1984, Senator Hollings and I introduced a bill to create a\nnational storm-scale operational and research meteorology [STORM]\nprogram to update the country's extreme weather prediction systems.\nWith this bill, we sought to emphasize the transition from the old\nradar systems to the implementation of the new NEXRAD system. This bill\npassed the Senate, but it died in the House. Senator Hollings and I\nreintroduced this bill in 1986 after NASA lost a weather satellite. Our\nresolution would also have urged the administration to launch another\nGOES satellite and increase weather reconnaissance flights in the\ninterim. The Commerce Committee passed this resolution in June.\n In 1990, the battle to preserve Huntsville's weather station began;\nthe NWS had proposed dropping the weather station serving northern\nAlabama in the implementation of its NEXRAD system. That year, I met\nwith the Deputy Director of the NWS to urge him to consider\nHuntsville's proposal to donate a weather radar system. I continued\nthis fight in 1994, making certain to be continually in contact with\nthe NWS and the NOAA to advocate maintenance of the Huntsville\nfacility. In 1994, I also contacted the Vice President to solicit his\nhelp in the continuation of the Huntsville National Weather Service\nRadar. I told him that I believed eliminating the station under NEXRAD\nwould leave northern Alabama and southern Tennessee in a vulnerable\nposition. That same year, I extracted promises from the Director of the\nNWS, Dr. Elbert Friday, to push back closing of this doppler radar\nstation. I also introduced the Weather Service Modernization Review Act\nof 1994 to require a study on the potential impact of closing weather\nstations. The Vice President ordered the study by the National Research\nCouncil. This study revealed that the Huntsville area would, in fact,\nsuffer from the lack of its own NEXRAD station. In 1995, I cited this\nstudy, and contacted the committee chairmen who oversaw the NOAA and\nthe NWS: Gramm, Pressler, and Hollings. The Commerce Committee approved\nan amendment to the Weather Service authorization to make it more\ndifficult to close 32 weather stations, including the Huntsville\nstation. I also contacted the Secretary of Commerce to advocate a new\nstation in the Huntsville area; he promised to install a center in\nnorthern Alabama. After his death this year, the NWS announced that it\nwould honor its commitment to install that center.\n\n After a number of tornadoes in northeast Alabama in 1994, the USDA\nand I jointly announced that the NWS' All Hazard Weather Radio Network\nwould put up a station to provide early warnings in the area. I had\ntoured this area, including Goshen and its United Methodist Church--\nwhich had been destroyed by the storm--with Vice President Gore, where\nI solicited his support to deal with such problems in the future.\nHowever, I was concerned about the performance of early warning systems\nin the State after more tornadoes hit Arab and Joppa the next year.\n In 1995, I supported a Cochran amendment to the Commerce, Justice,\nState appropriations bill to restore funding for the agricultural\nweather service centers at Stoneville, MS, and in Auburn. Weather is\nthe single most important external element in the production equation.\nBut this year, as the deadline for these centers' cutoff approached, I\nmet with NWS officials to discuss forecasts in the future. With\nRepresentative Browder, I pushed for continuation of these ag forecasts\nby transferring the NWS over to the USDA. Despite Senator Cochran's\nsupport, who realized the importance of specialized ag weather\nforecasts, the Republican agenda of the 104th Congress called for\ndownsizing the Federal Government and this vital service fell prey to\nprivatization.\n\n Research\n\n An action I am most proud of in the field of research is the passage\nof a bill that I authorized making it a Federal crime to vandalize,\ndestroy or make unauthorized use of animal research facilities,\nincluding data, equipment and the animals themselves. The Animal\nResearch Facilities Protection Act, which was signed into law as the\nAnimal Enterprise Act would impose severe penalties on individuals or\ngroups who interfered with medical and other research facilities where\nanimals are use.\n Unfortunately, some groups are so opposed to the use of animals in\nthis essential research that they set fire to research facilities or\nbreak into laboratories to steal animals and destroy equipment, records\nand research data. The real price of these types of crimes are paid by\nall those who are waiting for cures and treatments for their\nafflictions. Research into Alzheimer's disease, cancer, AIDS, substance\naddiction and mental health were at stake here.\n Public interest in animal welfare should be encouraged. Research\nutilizing laboratory animals has led to many of medical history's most\nsignificant breakthroughs. These animals are used only when necessary\nand should be housed, handled and treated humanely. Those who disagree\nwith the responsible use of animals in research do not have the right\nto take the law into their own hands.\n While a few States have already enacted laws increasing penalties for\ncrimes against research facilities, I felt it was necessary to\nestablish protections on the Federal level.\n\n Tuskegee\n\n In 1862, the U.S. Congress passed the first Morrill Act which\nprovided for the establishment of land-grant institutions in the\nSouthern and border States. These institutions were designed to educate\ncitizens in the field of agriculture, home economics, the mechanic arts\nand other practical skills. Since the Southern States were\nuncooperative in funding historically African-American institutions\nunder this law, Congress passed a second Morrill Act in 1890, creating\nthe 1890 land-grant institutions.\n Alabama has two 1890 land-grant institutions, the Tuskegee Institute\nand Alabama A&M. Tuskegee was created by an act of the Alabama\nLegislature and granted land by the U.S. Congress.\n Although the 1890 institutions were chartered more than 100 years\nago, a stream of ``hard'' money for research was not created until\nfiscal year 1967. The Tuskegee Institute was not officially a land-\ngrant college, but in 1980, I was able to have the Tuskegee Institute\nadded to the permanent list of 1890 institutions and ensure there would\nbe a continuous stream of Federal research funds. Further, Congress\ncreated the Chappie James Center at Tuskegee with the 1890\nreauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and it ensured\nfunding for each of these institutions with the 1981 farm bill.\n\n Auburn\n\n I have worked closely with Alabama's 1862 land-grant institution,\nAuburn University, over the years and the 104th Congress was no\nexception. I was especially successful in completing, or continuing,\nfunding for several very important research initiatives through the\ncollege of agriculture and the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station\nin cooperation with the Department of Agriculture.\n Funding for the completion of the new poultry science facility at\nAuburn\n\n[[Page S12432]]\n\nwas achieved in the fiscal year 1997 agriculture appropriations bill.\nThis $12 million facility will provide a state of the art facility for\nessential research into one of the most important agriculture sectors\nin Alabama, the poultry industry.\n I was also successful in securing funds for continued water quality\nresearch conducted at the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station. The\nresearch involves a team effort by scientists at Auburn and other land-\ngrant universities, the CSREES, the TVA, State and private agencies,\nand most importantly, the producers. New technology is implemented\nimmediately, which enhances the development and growth of agricultural\nindustries. The water quality research also addresses problems that\nconfront rural development and the sustainability of agricultural\nenterprises. Most importantly, though, this research is responsible for\ndeveloping and implementing water and crop management practices that\nboth enhance agriculture production and protect and preserve an\nimportant natural resource--water.\n One specific example of this is the irrigation project being\nconducted at the experiment substation in Bell Mina, AL. Increased\ndemand for irrigation water in the southwestern United States is\ncausing increased stress on many streams where farmers are pumping\ndirectly from the stream. As a possible method to decrease this demand\nduring periods of low stream flow and to make more water available for\nirrigation, a study was initiated to evaluate the feasibility of\npumping during high stream flows to off-stream storage sites. These\nsites could be on-farm or farmer-shared reservoirs. The irrigation\nreservoir at Bell Mina has been completed and the early results appear\npromising.\n The National Soil Dynamics Laboratory at Auburn conducts research\ndesigned to solve soil management problems. Developing effective\nmethods of managing soil to maintain its quality, and to improve the\nquality and productivity of degraded soil, requires a multidisciplinary\nprogram. One component of this research being conducted at the soil\nlaboratory is the agronomic portion. House appropriators eliminated\nfunding for this component in their agriculture appropriations bill.\nFortunately, I was able to have this funding restored in the Senate\nbill. The agronomic portion of the multidisciplinary program at the\nsoil lab is vital because it is the very portion that facilitates the\ntechnology transfer from the lab to the field.\n\n TVA\n\n I fought for continuation of TVA's National Fertilizer and\nEnvironmental Research Center after the Clinton administration had\ntargeted it for elimination. The administration argued that this\nresearch should be conducted privately. But I contacted the VP and the\nBudget Director, and it was simply a matter of explaining that NFERC\nwas an up-and-running research center that was already accomplishing\nmany of the environmental goals set by the administration. Once this\nwas laid out for them, they saw that it made no sense to kill a working\nprogram in order to create new programs with similar goals.\n I also introduced a bill to transfer aquaculture from the Interior\nDepartment to the USDA. This was a long-overdue streaming measure that\nwill greatly improve the overall efficiency and timeliness of\naquaculture research. Specifically, it saved the Southeastern Fish\nCultural Laboratory in Marion by moving it from Interior to the USDA.\nIt was adopted in the most recent farm bill. The U.S. aquaculture\nindustry has grown more than 15 percent annually since 1980. As a\nresult, aquaculture has emerged as a solid alternative for farmers and\nallowed them to diversity. In fact, aquaculture is of vital importance\nto the economy of west Alabama. Over 20 percent of the area's\npopulation is employed directly in the production or the processing of\ncatfish.\n\n Rural Electric\n\n While commodity programs seem to dominate agriculture policy, rural\ndevelopment policy is an area that I have paid special attention to.\nThis is particularly true with regard to rural electrification.\n Most recently I authored the Rural Electrification Loan Restructuring\nAct of 1993 which was signed into law on November 1, 1993, as Public\nLaw 103-129.\n This legislation eliminated the authority of the REA Administrator to\nmake 2 percent loans, established criteria for a REA electric\ndistribution borrower can qualify for a 5 percent loan, and authorized\nthe Administrator to make loans at the municipal cost of capital. This\nlegislation also addressed high density cooperatives, rural development\neligibility, and private capital requirements among other things.\n In the 1996 farm bill, I was instrumental in securing additional loan\nrestructuring authority for the Secretary of Agriculture regarding\nrural electric loans. We are currently working with the USDA to\npromulgate regulations that will provide the Secretary with sufficient\nflexibility to carry out the intention of Congress.\n As part of the Republican plan to balance the budget, Republicans\nproposed selling off the Power Marketing Administrations, which provide\nelectricity to regional distribution cooperatives. The primary concern\nwith this proposal was that PMA ``purchasers'' would have to increase\nthe price at which they made electric power available in order to\nrecover their purchasing costs. I believed strongly that this would\nultimately translate into higher utility costs for end-users of rural\nelectric cooperatives.\n With this issue being debated in the Energy Committee, when a seat on\nthe committee became available, I returned to the Energy Committee and\nassisted in preventing this proposal from being made a part of the\nRepublican reconciliation bill.\n\n Trade\n\n In 1981, I applauded the President's decision to lift the Soviet\ngrain embargo. I did believe that the United States needed to take\naction against the Soviets for invading Afghanistan. However, it is\nmost regrettable that the farmers of the United States have had to bear\nthe cost of this foreign policy instrument alone. For that reason, in\n1982, I urged the President to develop a long-term, Soviet grain\nagreement. I advocated ending grain embargoes and working to expand\nexport markets, including multiple year extensions of trade agreements.\nA 1-year extension has the effect of a defacto embargo because it keeps\nthe specter of an embargo looming over the whole grain growing and\nexporting industry. The mere threat of an embargo keeps grain prices\ndepressed and plays havoc with the entire farm economy. In 1983, after\nthe downing of the Korean jetliner attack, I feared that the President\nwould impose another embargo on the Soviets, so I introduced a bill to\ncreate a state undersecretary for agricultural affairs. It seemed that\nincreasingly our agricultural policy is being set by officials of the\nState Department as they respond to international events. In 1984, the\nSenate passed a bill I cosponsored to require congressional approval of\ntrade embargoes. It would require that both Houses approve an embargo\nwithin 60 days and review it every 6 months. There was no doubt that\npast embargoes, and the threat of new embargoes, significantly\ncontributed to the erosion of U.S. export dominance and the resulting\ndecline in farm income.\n In 1983, when the President was preparing to visit Japan, I sponsored\na sense-of-the-Senate resolution to urge that United States negotiators\nshould insist that Japan dismantle all of its barriers on imported\nbeef. This resolution passed. I urged the passage of a similar\nresolution in 1984. In 1988, the beef agreement with Japan expired, and\nnegotiations stalled.\n Then an unusual series of events occurred. The Japanese Ambassador\nasked me in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts of\nthe Judicial Committee to pass a courts bill allowing the use of\nJapanese language interpreters in Federal court cases. We succeeded in\ngetting the necessary legislation approved. The Ambassador thanked me\nand then asked me if there was anything he could do for me. I replied I\nwould like to meet with the Japanese Minister of Agriculture, trade\nrepresentatives, and two members of the Diet. I was able to bring\nrepresentatives of the National Cattlemen's Association to the meeting.\nWe had a very frank discussion and reported the progress to the U.S.\ntrade representatives. Fortunately, a few\n\n[[Page S12433]]\n\ndays later a very favorable trade arrangement was worked out and\nAmerican beef was allowed to be exported to Japan in far greater\nnumbers than before. The arrangement further eliminated the quotas\nafter 3 years, at which time the Japanese could impose tariffs if beef\npassed trigger levels.\n I have been concerned about poultry exports for some time. In 1983, I\nwrote to the trade representative to urge him to address Brazil's\nincrease in poultry exports. From 1976 to 1980, the U.S. share dropped\nfrom 20 percent to almost nothing. Since Brock did not act, several\nother Senators and I contacted the President directly, noting that the\nU.S. share of the world poultry market had fallen from 97 percent to 13\npercent over 20 years. To address these concerns, I attached a poultry\nexport marketing program to the Agriculture Committee's payment-in-kind\nbill. This bill was designed to open new markets and recapture old\nones.\n In 1984, I joined several other Senators to urge the President to\nnegotiate with the Canadian Prime Minister to address hog trade.\nLegislation was before the Congress to impose duties, we informed the\nCPM, and their exports to the United States had risen 10 times. In\n1985, I pressed this point again. Disputes with Brazil over poultry,\nChina over cotton, and Australia over beef, combined with this trade\nimbalance had clearly demonstrated that the United States needed to put\nan end to the use of unfair subsidized competition and to recoup its\nfair share of world export trade. I was pleased that the Commerce\nDepartment acted to impose duties on Canadian pork. I also wrote to the\nTrade Representative in 1994 to urge him to seek Canadian compliance\nwith the terms of NAFTA. I also joined Representative Rose to urge an\nITC investigation of dumping of Canadian peanut paste in the United\nStates.\n\n When the United States began to consider food aid to the Soviet Union\nin 1990, I encouraged the USDA to aid that country by developing food\ndistribution practices rather than simply granting money. The precedent\nfor such aid was the food for progress program created in the 1985 farm\nbill and successfully implemented in the Uruguay round. But as the\nsituation became more severe in the Soviet Union, I urged the\nAgriculture Secretary to provide emergency, ready-to-cook provisions.\nPeople were in desperate need of immediate help, and raw commodities\nlike grain would not be as helpful. I did, however, remind the\nSecretary that the aid would need to be provided as a credit, not a\ngrant. I also urged the Agriculture Secretary not to abandon United\nStates textile bags in this Food for Peace Program; that decision would\nhave resulted in the loss of American jobs in favor of Chinese slave\nlabor. I also advocated sending peanut butter and other peanut products\nto Russia, which was looking for a cheap meat substitute.\n This year, I urged the President to resolve the trade dispute with\nthe Russians when they announced that they would no longer import\nUnited States poultry. The Russians had refused to recognize the United\nStates system of poultry inspection. Along with several of my\ncolleagues, we urged President Clinton to carry this issue to the\nhighest levels of the Russian Government. While in Russia, Vice\nPresident Gore and Secretary Glickman raised this issue and soon\nafterward, an agreement was reached. The poultry industry is extremely\nimportant to the economy of Alabama. It accounts for 54 percent of all\nfarm income in the State and 75 percent of farm exports.\n In conjunction with other Senators from poultry producing States, in\nthe 104th Congress we also had to fight barriers to interstate free\ntrade. The current regulation regarding the labeling of ``fresh''\npoultry states that poultry preserved above zero degrees fahrenheit\nshall be labeled fresh, and poultry below zero degrees, the point at\nwhich animal flesh freezes, shall be labeled frozen.\n The USDA, on behalf of California poultry producers, promulgated\nregulations to raise the benchmark for fresh to 26 degrees based on the\npremise of consumer claims that the current regulations for poultry\nlabeling was misleading.\n We were able to demonstrate, however, that this was actually an\neffort by the California poultry industry to erect a barrier to\nshipments of poultry from historic poultry producing regions,\nspecifically the Southeast. I obtained a copy of a report by the\nCalifornia Poultry Working Group, an industry panel designed to study\nand make recommendations on the California poultry industry, that\nstated in its findings that the single, most significant barrier to\nindustry growth was the high cost of poultry production in California.\nOn the other hand, poultry producers in the Southeast are able to\nproduce broilers and ship them to other parts of the country at a\nprofit.\n With Senator Cochran's leadership, we were able to block the\nimplementation of this new regulation in the fiscal year 1996\nagriculture appropriations bill. During negotiations on the fiscal year\n1997 agriculture appropriations bill a compromise was agreed to.\nIronically, the compromise was essentially the same proposal that I put\nforward a year earlier. Nevertheless, it was a deal that Southeast\npoultry producers could live with.\n\n Conclusion\n\n In addition to rewriting farm policy, the 104th Congress made\nsubstantial progress in other areas under the agricultural policy\numbrella. Earlier this year, the Congress passed and the President\nsigned H.R. 2029, the Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996. This\nimportant legislation brought a degree of regulatory reform to the Farm\nCredit System Banks while also addressing needed charges in Farmer Mac\nand resolving the FAC debt issue.\n Of major significance, Congress finally broke the logjam that had\nlasted for nearly 2 decades and passed legislation to rewrite Federal\npesticide laws, bringing about much needed reform of the outdated\nDelaney clause.\n The Food Quality Protection Act, H.R. 1627, received unanimous\nsupport once all the pieces of the puzzle were put into place.\nTraditionally, the battleground between industry and environmental\nsupporters, the urgency to resolve pesticide legislation was created by\ncourt rulings that would have ordered the EPA to begin canceling the\nuse of some common chemicals.\n The bill as signed into law will revise pesticide registration under\nthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947,\nspeeding up some EPA registration procedures. The bill also recognizes\nseparate registration procedures for minor use chemicals, and under\nlegislation I coauthored, antimicrobials, or common household and\nindustrial chemical cleansers.\n Most importantly, this legislation reformed the notorious Delaney\nclause of the 1958 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which barred\nprocessed food from containing even minute amounts of cancer-causing\nchemicals. The hard-fought compromise of the Delaney reform will impose\na safety standard to ensure that pesticide residues on both raw and\nprocessed food pose no reasonable risk of harm. This standard\nessentially means that there will likely be no more than a one-in-a-\nmillion chance that a residue would cause cancer. The old standard was\ncompletely outdated, given modern technology, that prevented some\nchemicals from being used that actually reduced the natural level of\ncarcinogens in many commodities. This is an important reform and I am\nglad that we were able to achieve this victory this year.\n\n While there were some victories over the last 2 years, there were\nalso some defeats and close calls. I have long been a supporter of\nprivate property rights legislation. As a matter of fact, the only\nprivate property bill to pass the Senate in the 103d Congress was the\nHeflin-Dole private property bill. I am sorry to say that the effort to\npass private property rights legislation failed in this Congress. I\nalso regret that attempts to move regulatory reform legislation were\nnot successful.\n As I close out my career in the U.S. Senate, I reflect back on all\nthat has been accomplished. With regard to agriculture, I am extremely\npleased and proud of the progress made on behalf of rural America and\nfamily farms.\n Over the last 18 years, I am proud to say that I have been a part of\nworking to ensure that electricity and water and sewer systems were\nextended to areas where they once were not. We have strengthened the\nfamily farm by providing adequate capital to farms and agribusiness. We\nhave passed farm bills that have stabilized the family farm, made the\nAmerican farmer the\n\n[[Page S12434]]\n\nenvy of the world and at the same time, protected the environment and\nreduced the deficit. Through the work on the Agriculture Committee we\nhave extended technological advancements into rural America through\ntelemedicine and distance learning initiatives. Foreign markets for\nU.S. agricultural products have been opened wide and agricultural\nresearch has led to more efficient farming with breakthroughs such as\nno-till agriculture and precision farming employing satellite imagery.\n While a great deal has been accomplished, I am still concerned about\nwhat the future may hold. As the American society continues to become\nmore urban, fewer and fewer have an appreciation for issues affecting\nrural America. Furthermore, I believe that most take for granted that\nonly 3 percent of the American population, in addition to feeding the\nworld, provide this country with the highest quality, most abundant and\naffordable food supply of any nation in the world.\n The 1996 farm bill, which is a major departure from traditional farm\nprograms, leaves an uneasy feeling for the future. Although it was\nostensibly designed to bring certainty to farming, I believe the 1996\nfarm bill created many potential problems that we may not even be aware\nof for some years to come. Specifically, I believe decoupling payments\nfrom market prices was a mistake. Only time will tell, but I hope that\nthere will be Members of Congress who are sympathetic to the needs of\nrural America should the Freedom to Farm proposal fail.\n I am also concerned about the state of the cotton industry. I have\nbeen contacted recently by sectors of the industry raising concerns\nabout the growing volume of cotton imports into this country. This is\nsomething that I plan to monitor in the near future. Also, I am curious\nto see the effectiveness of the bioengineered Bt cotton seed. Bt cotton\nwas engineered to be resistant to insects. To date, reports indicate a\ngreat deal of success with this new cotton. I will be curious to review\nresults after the current harvest is complete,.\n Farming families and rural communities are the backbone of this great\nNation. I am proud to have served on their behalf on the Agriculture\nCommittee for 18 years. As I return to Alabama and the many farmers in\nnorthern Alabama, I will continue to meet with, and monitor, the state\nof U.S. agriculture and the proud farmers who produce our food and\nfiber. It is my sincere hope that those who remain in Congress, and\nthose to come, will give the proper consideration to rural issues as\nthey come before this body.\n Mr. President, back on August 20, 1996, the Alabama Peanut Producers\nheld a dinner in my honor. I was very thankful and humbled by their\noutpouring of affection and humor that evening.\n One of the most memorable and humorous speeches was one given by\nTexas Congressman Charlie Stenholm, a long-time friend and colleague. I\nhave had the pleasure of working with him over the years on many\nagricultural issues, particularly those relating to the peanut program.\nShould the Democrats regain the House majority this fall, Charlie will\nprobably be the Agriculture Committee's new chairman.\n I ask that a copy of Congressman Stenholm's remarks be printed in the\nRecord. It gives an entertaining and humorous inside account of some of\nour behind-the-scenes battles on these important issues over the years.\n The material follows:\n\n Notes for Speech at Senator Howell Heflin Event, August 20, 1996\n\n Senator Heflin was elected to the United States Senate in\n 1978, and begin serving on the Senate Agriculture Committee\n just as the committee began work on the 1981 farm bill.\n Everyone knew the '81 bill would be a challenge, the\n Republicans had just taken the White House and the Senate.\n Senator Richard Lugar became the Chairman of the Senate\n Committee on Agriculture. The Indiana Senator was not known\n for his support of the peanut program.\n Those present at the time and involved in the development\n of the farm bill remember that then Freshman Senator Howell\n Heflin took a particular interest in the peanut program. One\n producer representative, Larry Meyers, has commented that in\n his 24 years in Washington, Senator Heflin was the only\n Senator who, when asked to support the program, made Larry\n sit at the Senator's desk while he went through the entire\n bill, discussing even the proper placement of commas and\n semicolons, to ensure the bill reflected truly what was best\n for peanut growers.\n That kind of detail and preparation has made Senator Heflin\n a formidable foe on the Senate floor for those who sought to\n end the program. A couple of interesting stories came out of\n that 1985 farm bill period. Early in the farm bill process,\n another new Senator and now Governor of California Pete\n Wilson tried to offer a difficult to understand amendment\n affecting a small crop in California. It was just before\n lunch, members were anxious to adjourn the meeting and there\n was little interest in the amendment. When Senator Wilson\n finished offering his amendment, there was an awkward silence\n when no one seconded the amendment. Suddenly, just before the\n Chairman was about to rule the amendment out of order and\n adjourn the committee for lunch, Senator Heflin suddenly\n spoke of the amendment's outstanding merit and seconded the\n motion. With that, the Committee quickly approved the measure\n and adjourned for lunch.\n Senator Wilson quickly left his seat and came around the\n table to say thank you to Senator Heflin, who he admitted he\n really did not know since they were both new to the\n committee.\n Senator Heflin replied to Senator Wilson with a smile and a\n wink, ``Senator, we don't grow your California crops in\n Alabama, but we do grow peanuts!''\n Senator Wilson got the message, and later voted in support\n of the peanut program.\n At another point about this time, then Secretary of\n Agriculture came before the Senate agriculture committee to\n promote a new program called ``P, I, K'' or Payment In Kind.\n After the Secretary finished testifying in favor the PIK\n program, Senator Heflin questioned the Secretary with a long\n inquiry wherein Senator Heflin clearly referred to the\n program as ``P, I, P'' or as the ``PIP'' program several\n times.\n In responding to the Senator, Secretary Block first tried\n to correct Senator Heflin, ``It's the P, I, K program,\n Senator, PIK!'' Senator Heflin paused for a dramatic moment\n and replied, ``Oh, I thought you said P, I, P, the Pig in a\n Poke program.'' The room roared with laughter, and everyone\n understood Heflin's attitude about the proposed new program.\n On a more serious note, there can be little doubt, that,\n over the years, Senator Howell Heflin has been ``Mr. Peanut''\n in the Senate, and the real reason the program has enjoyed\n such strong support over the years in the Senate.\n It was not always that way. During the debate on the 1981\n farm bill when the Senator was still new in the Senate, then\n Committee Chairman Richard Lugar offered in the Senate a\n motion that effectively killed the peanut program. In a\n dramatic, difficult vote, the Senate approved Senator Lugar's\n motion. There was then a pause in the deliberations when\n Senator Heflin and Senator Warner of Virginia got all the\n peanut representatives and farmers that were in Washington\n for the Farm Bill debate into a room to discuss what to do\n next. Everyone agreed the peanut acreage allotment program\n was dead, but if another type of program could be designed\n in a matter of minutes that would keep peanut farmers in\n business without allotments, perhaps the Senate could be\n persuaded to accept some type of new program.\n Mr. Ross Wilson, a strong admirer of Senator Heflin and the\n manager of the Southwest Peanut Grower's association sat down\n with the peanut leadership present, and wrote out in longhand\n on a yellow pad what is essentially the poundage quota\n program we have today. Senator Heflin and Senator Warner then\n took that yellow pad to the Senate floor and passed a new\n peanut program.\n It was a dramatic moment. It meant hundreds, if not\n thousands of small farmers could stay in business, and it\n came about because Senator Heflin was willing to stand up\n with farmers.\n And as a result, you can say Senator Howell Heflin is,\n ``The Father of the Modern Peanut Program.''\n In the ensuing years, during farm bill debates and even\n during appropriations considerations, the peanut program has\n been attacked several times, But each time, we had a peanut\n leader in the Senate: Senator Howell Heflin would stand and\n defend the program strongly as he did this year, and each\n time, those attacking the program suffered defeat and the\n peanut program continues.\n We owe him a great deal of appreciation.\n Yes, although it can be said Senator Heflin saved the\n peanut program repeatedly over the years, but in addition,\n there are several provisions of the peanut program we can\n look to and know that they developed directly by the\n Senator: The support price escalator based on the cost of\n production we enjoyed since 1985 until this year; the\n three marketing associations being written clearly into\n the law; and dozens of smaller provisions that have made\n the program work more efficiently and at lower cost to the\n government.\n In addition, and perhaps most significant, and something I\n have personally witnessed, has been Senator Heflin's work in\n Conference.\n After the House and Senate pass a bill, there are almost\n always differences that must be resolved in what we call a\n ``Conference''; a meeting of members to iron out the\n differences and come up with language both Houses will\n approve.\n This is where Senator Howell Heflin has been of most value\n to this industry, particularly this year when we had to make\n the most of a bad situation.\n\n[[Page S12435]]\n\n Charlie Rose and I always knew, if we lost an important\n provision, Senator Heflin would put it back in, or if we\n could get a new provision, Senator Heflin could keep it in\n when the bill came to conference.\n This year it was particularly true when you can credit\n Senator Heflin with killing the 5-percent penalty for loan\n peanuts which would have hurt every peanut farmer in this\n country.\n It was fun to watch: When the debate got heated, if you saw\n Senator Heflin lean back in this chair, slowly push the\n plastic back on his cigar and begin to chew, you knew he was\n thinking and was about to close in for the kill--this year on\n the Republican Leadership that was seeking to decimate the\n program.\n I know you are not fully happy with the program the way it\n turned out in the end, but we got one. And the challenge can\n be summed up with the remark that Senator Richard Lugar was\n heard to make after the farm bill conference: ``In looking at\n this language, I can see that once again, Senator Howell\n Heflin has prevailed over those of us who sought to end the\n peanut program.''\n Senator Heflin, that is a fitting tribute.\n Congratulations, and thank you.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12435-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THANKS TO STAFF", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12435", "S12439", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12435", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12435-S12439]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THANKS TO STAFF\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on the last day the Senate was in\nsession, October 4, I stood on the floor and briefly thanked my staff\nmembers for all their hard work over the years. At that time, I had a\nlist of their names, hometowns, and date of joining our staff inserted\ninto the Congressional Record. I also said that later, I would make\nadditional comments about each of those.\n As I said, it is easy to take staff for granted. Much of what they do\nis carried out in such a way that we might not be aware always of what\nthey are doing. But they put in long hours just like we do. They are\ndedicated not only to us, but to the States we serve. My staff has\nhelped thousands of Alabamians and other citizens with problems,\nquestions, projects, and other general concerns.\n I have been fortunate to have many long-time staff members who have\nbeen with me for many years, some since my first year in the Senate.\nOthers have not been here as long, but have still made valuable\ncontributions. Most have come from Alabama or had some connection to\nthe State, such as being an alumnus of a university there, but others\nhave come from the Washington area or other parts of the east coast.\n I am proud of my staff, both here in Washington and in the four State\noffices. They have done an outstanding job for the Senate, for the\nState of Alabama, and for the Nation and I thank all of them and wish\nthem well as they retire or move on to new career opportunities. I\nwould now like to say a few words about each of those who are still\nserving with us during these final weeks of my term.\n\n steve raby\n\n Heading up my Washington staff is Steve Raby, my administrative\nassistant. Over the years, Steve has been a tireless worker and voice\nfor the State of Alabama and the Nation. He has superb judgment and\nunsurpassable ability to motivate workers under his supervision. He\nfirst joined my staff in January 1984 as a legislative assistant\nfocusing on agriculture and rural development policy. In 1987, he\nbecame my administrative assistant, responsible for legislative and\npolitical matters affecting Alabama. Steve was born in Huntsville, AL,\nand received his bachelors and masters degrees from Auburn University.\nI have accused him numerous times of filling my staff with Auburn\ngraduates so he could have more support in the Auburn-Alabama football\nrivalry. Prior to joining my staff, Steve worked as a research\nassistant at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta analyzing economic\nindicators of regional economy. Steve is married to the former Denise\nCole. They have two sons--Nathan and Keenan. I predict a great future\nfor him in anything he undertakes, including politics.\n\n winston lett\n\n As ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative\n\n[[Page S12436]]\n\nOversight and the Courts, I have faced a myriad of interesting and\nchallenging issues. Since 1990, Winston Lett has served as Democratic\nchief counsel and staff director of this prestigious subcommittee and\nhas worked with me on multitudes of legislation. Born in Opelika, AL,\nWinston graduated from Auburn University and received his law degree\nfrom the University of Alabama. It is safe to say that Winston is a\nfavorite son of his hometown: The Opelika and Auburn Chambers of\nCommerce proclaimed ``Winston Lett Day'' in 1989. Aside from this\ndistinction, Winston was assistant attorney general in Alabama from\n1973 to 1977 before transferring to Washington as administrative\nassistant to the late Representative Bill Nichols of Alabama until\n1988. In 1989, Winston was administrative assistant to Representative\nGlen Browder before joining my staff a year later. Winston has been a\ncalm, steady voice amid many turbulent judiciary matters and I deeply\nappreciate his outstanding work. He is an excellent lawyer and has an\nexceptional ability to get along with people.\n\n denise addison\n\n Denise Addison was born here in Washington, the fifth child of Elmer\nand Louise Meadows. She graduated from Saint Patrick's Academy in 1975\nand has been a fixture on Capitol Hill for 21 years now. She has worked\nfor an astounding number of Members of Congress, beginning with Senator\nJohn V. Tunney of California. Since then, she has also worked for\nCongressman Robert N.C. Nix of Pennsylvania; Senator Charles H. Percy\nof Illinois; Senator Robert Kasten of Wisconsin; and Senator Mark\nAndrews of North Dakota. She came to my office in 1988, and has been an\nintegral part of the success of our correspondence, computer, filing,\nand office management operations. She married Alvin Addison in 1985,\nand together they have three children, Alvin, Jr., Dominique, and\nJasmine.\n\n sonceria ann bishop berry\n\n Every office has that one person who knows how to fix, find, and take\ncare of just about anything. In my office, that person is Sonceria Ann\nBishop Berry. Ann joined my Tuscumbia office in April 1979 and moved to\nWashington the following month as a secretary. She eventually served as\nassistant office manager before being promoted to office manager in\n1992. A native of Birmingham, AL, Ann received her bachelors degree\nfrom the University of North Alabama. She is married to Reginald A.\nBerry and they have one daughter, Elizabeth Ruth. Ann was one of my\nyoungest staff members when she arrived in Washington. I have seen her\ngrow up into a fine young woman. I am proud to have her as a member of\nmy staff. She is one of a kind.\n\n mary catherine brooks\n\n Mary Catherine Brooks, or ``Cappie'' as she is known, joined my staff\nin March 1989 as assistant to my administrative assistant, Steve Raby.\nA native of Birmingham, AL, Cappie attended the University of Alabama\nand the Katherine Gibbs School in Boston, MA. During her years of\nservice on my staff, Cappie has tackled many special projects. One of\nthe most notable was the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast honoring\nPresident Bill Clinton. As chairman of the Senate Prayer Breakfast, I\nwas responsible for organizing a guest list of several thousand\ndignitaries from over 100 different countries. I relied heavily on\nCappie, who managed the event masterfully. President Clinton and Vice\nPresident Al Gore both thanked Cappie personally for her outstanding\nwork. Cappie's next special project is of a more personal nature: Her\nSpring 1997 wedding to Bill Stiers. She is most attractive as well as\nefficient.\n\n tim brown\n\n Tim Brown has been my loyal and dedicated traveling companion over\nthe years. He has been with me to each and every county in Alabama at\none time or another. He has served as my State director, heading up all\nfour of my Alabama offices, since 1995. Prior to that, he was the field\nrepresentative responsible for 23 counties based out of Montgomery. He\ncame to my Montgomery office in 1985 after working on my campaign the\nprevious 2 years. He earned a bachelor of arts degree from Auburn\nUniversity in 1971 and his law degree from Jones Law School in 1976.\nFrom 1972 to 1983, he worked for his family's business--Brown and Sons,\nInc., a trucking and textiles company. Tim is from Enterprise, home of\nthe famous boll weevil statue. His father, the late M.N. ``Jug'' Brown\nwas mayor of Enterprise for 18 years. He is married to Cathy, an\nemployee of Alabama Power Co. His political instincts are sharp, and he\nhas been my eyes and ears in Alabama. He has been instrumental to the\neffectiveness of our State operations and no one could have done a\nbetter job of keeping me up-to-speed on local and State issues.\n\n beau greenwood\n\n Beau Greenwood has been my agriculture legislative assistant since\nFebruary 1995. As we faced the formidable task of rewriting the farm\nbill in the 104th Congress, I relied heavily on Beau. He worked with me\nto ensure that southern agriculture was treated equitably. We faced a\ntremendous battle with the peanut program, but fortunately were\nsuccessful in defending this vital program. This long, grueling process\ncame to a successful conclusion thanks in no small part to Beau's\nefforts. Prior to serving on my staff, he worked for Representative\nCharlie Rose of North Carolina from 1992 to 1995. A native of Corpus\nChristi, Beau is the son of Allen Greenwood of Corpus Christi and\nSherri Moore Greenwood of Little Rock, AR. Beau attended Texas A&M\nUniversity and received his undergraduate degree from George Washington\nUniversity. He studies each issue carefully and is a master of details.\n\n joyce d. hackworth\n\n Joyce Hackworth has been with me since the beginning of my Senate\ncareer, building on her legacy of working with Democratic Senators from\nAlabama. Born and raised in Montgomery, AL, she attended Troy State\nUniversity before going to work for Senator John Sparkman in January\n1971. In fact, Joyce moved to Birmingham to open Senator Sparkman's\nfirst State office. She remained with him until he retired in 1979. I\nwas elected to Senator Sparkman's seat that year and brought Joyce over\nto my staff. She has been the office manager in my Birmingham office\nsince January 1979, and says she plans to retire along with me. Her\nretirement date, effective January 2, 1997, will mark 26 continuous\nyears as a U.S. Senate staffer. Eighteen of those years have been spent\non my staff handling everything from casework to the wide range of\nconstituent requests that come into a Senate office on a daily basis. I\nappreciate her excellent work and colorful personality.\n\n henderson thad huguley\n\n Thad Huguley, who has been with my Washington staff since 1992, hails\nfrom Lanett, AL. While a student at the University of Alabama, he\nserved as vice president of the Student Government Association, was\ninducted into numerous campus leadership and scholastic honor\nsocieties, and worked as a part-time field reporter for the CBS\naffiliate in Tuscaloosa. He began working for me as a legislative\ncorrespondent. As a legislative assistant since late 1993, Thad has\nbeen responsible for telecommunications, commerce, environmental,\nbanking, housing, transportation, and labor issues. He seems to have\ndelved into virtually every possible issue area at one time or another.\nHe is a jack-of-all-trades who was always able to master complex issues\nquickly. He has been a tremendous asset to my office and has been\ninstrumental in helping set and accomplish our legislative agenda. He\ncompleted his master of arts in American history at American University\nin May 1996.\n\n lea aldridge hurt\n\n Lea Hurt has been writing media releases, producing television and\nradio feeds and juggling reporter queries in my press office since July\n1991. Before joining my staff, she was a familiar face on my hometown\ntelevision station, WOWL-15 NBC, in Florence, AL, where she anchored\nthe evening news. After moving to Annapolis in 1990 to be with her new\nhusband Jay, Lea worked as an assignment editor at Sun World Satellite\nNews until I hired her a year later to be my assistant press secretary.\nNow, as communications director, Lea handles a wide range of issues. A\nnative of Decatur, AL, Lea is the daughter of Linda and Walter Brooks.\nShe attended Calhoun Community College in Decatur, where she was SGA\npresident, before graduating from the University of North Alabama with\na\n\n[[Page S12437]]\n\ndegree in English. Lea and I work together every week to produce my\nweekly column. I figured recently that we have put out around 280\ncolumns on topics ranging from the balanced budget amendment to\nconstituent services. I have appreciated her hard work, pleasant\npersonality, and dedication. She always presents an attractive\nappearance. I wish her every future success.\n\n brenda jarvis\n\n Brenda Jarvis knows Montgomery--everything from the city streets to\nthe State legislature. It is her hometown as well as where she now\nlives with her husband Jake and two children, Heather and Ricki Marie.\nBrenda joined my staff as a field representative in 1990, working with\nconstituents, State agencies, the State legislature, local governments\nand chambers of commerce. Prior to that, she served as a member of\nGovernor George Wallace's staff from 1971 to 1979 as an administrative\nassistant working with legislation, extraditions, the Department of\nCorrections, the Board of Pardon and Parole, the Department of Public\nSafety, court matters as well as appointments to boards, agencies and\ncourts. From 1983 to 1987, Governor Wallace appointed her to be\nassistant director of the State Commission on Aging responsible for the\nState administration of the Older Americans Act. With her extensive\ncareer background, Brenda has been an invaluable help to me in many\nmatters over the years. I have enjoyed working with her.\n\n mary janet johnson\n\n Jan Johnson was one of the original ``Howell's Angels'' in my 1978\ncampaign for U.S. Senate. She and other volunteers worked many long\nhours for my election and, thanks to these efforts, we were successful.\nWhen I took office, Jan joined my staff working out of my Tuscumbia\noffice as a field representative and State aide, continuing her legacy\nof long hours and hard work. In her 18 years on my Senate staff, Jan\nhas traveled the State of Alabama like few others have. She knows the\n``where'' and the ``who'' and can tell you the always-fascinating\nhistory that goes with it. Jan was born in Franklin County to Oscar and\nNelda Lois Jackson. She has a son, Jacob Johnson, and a daughter, Mary\nElizabeth Johnson Cahoon. I have depended on her greatly over the years\nand have appreciated her hard work.\n\n jeanne jones\n\n Since September 1982, Jeanne Jones has been a case worker and\nsecretary in my Mobile office. For many years, Jeanne was the right-\nhand for Bob Morrissette, my dear friend and field representative in\nMobile who passed away only recently. The daughter of Mr. and Mrs.\nJames C. Lloyd, Jeanne was born in Birmingham, AL. She graduated from\nShades Valley High School and attended Jacksonville State University\nand the University of South Alabama. Jeanne moved to Juneau to work for\nthe State of Alaska for 2 years before returning to Alabama to live in\nMobile in 1971. She has three children: Jeri, Jana and Jill; one son-\nin-law, Dirk, and two grandchildren, Taylor and Shelby. For 14 years,\nJeanne has helped thousands of people in south Alabama with countless\nissues. I appreciate her dedicated work and tireless efforts on my\nbehalf.\n\n betty streeter lanier\n\n Betty Lanier has been serving on my staff for more than 10 years now\nas a secretary and staff assistant. Most recently, she has worked\nextensively with the legislative director, serving as his right hand in\nterms of managing his heavy load of casework, correspondence, and\nlegislative schedule. Previously, Betty worked for Illinois Senator\nPaul Simon and for a short time for Congressman Claude Pepper's House\nof Representatives Subcommittee on Health and Long-term Care. She also\nworked for several offices within the Department of Justice, including\nthe Federal Bureau of Investigation, which brought her to Washington.\nFrom the small Bullock County town of Midway, AL, Betty is endowed with\na variety of talents. She is a member of the Congressional Chorus, and\nhas performed with the group at inaugurations, annual lightings of the\nCapitol Christmas tree, and Kennedy Center Arts Festivals. In addition,\nshe has taken several Shakespearean acting classes. A post and avid\nreader, she has done an outstanding job and brought a real cultural and\nartistic flair to the office.\n\n alan leeth\n\n Alan Leeth has been a legislative assistant and counsel in my office\nsince December 1995, responsible for banking, budget, tax issues and\nIndian affairs. In the year that he has been with me, he has helped me\ndevelop and plan legislative initiatives, monitor developments within\ncommittees and on the Senate floor. Alan is from Opelika, AL, and is\nthe son of Roy and Carol Leeth. He graduated from the University of\nAlabama at Birmingham and received his law degree from my law school\nalma mater, the University of Alabama, where he met his wife Tracy.\nAlan has been a tremendous asset to my staff and I am sure I will\ncontinue to hear great things from him in the future.\n\n william mansel long, jr.\n\n William Mansel Long, Jr. began working in my Washington office in\n1979 as a legislative assistant. Since that time, he has moved up the\nranks and currently serves as legislative director. Mansel has proven\nhimself to be a close friend, loyal employee, and trusted advisor. I\nhave known him and his family for many years; he is also a native of\nTuscumbia. He served in the Army for 2 years, earning a Good Conduct\nMedal. He received a bachelor of arts degree from Tennessee State\nUniversity, and has taken graduate courses at Alabama A&M University,\nDistrict of Columbia Teachers College, The American University,\nCatholic University, Trinity College, and George Washington University.\nBefore joining my staff, Mansel was a social studies teacher, special\neducation teacher, and a consultant for International Business\nServices. He has received numerous honors and awards, and received a\nDoctor of Humane Letters degree from Faulkner University in 1984. ``Dr.\nLong,'' as the staff affectionately calls him, has been an outstanding\npublic servant and I could not imagine having served in the Senate\nwithout his assistance and leadership.\n\n judy lovell\n\n Judy Lovell has been my correspondence manager since 1990. In those 6\nyears, she has helped me develop and maintain an office mail management\nplan to deal with the thousands of letters we receive every week. Judy\ntakes care of the mail in a full circle approach. She directs the\nincoming mail to the appropriate person and then oversees the final\nreturn mailing process, scrutinizing everything from grammar to\ncontent. Aside from her outstanding work, Judy is also known for her\nexcellent bean dip, which we have been fortunate enough to frequently\nsample over the years. Before joining my staff, Judy worked for Senator\nHoward Cannon of Nevada from 1981 to 1983, and Senator John Danforth of\nMissouri from 1983 to 1990. She and her husband John live in Bowie, MD,\nand have four children: John, Tim, Terry, and Tracy; and one\ngrandchild, Katy.\n\n kristi mashon\n\n Kristi Mashon has taken on the herculean task of archiving documents\nfrom my career as a Senator and as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme\nCourt. She has been working with me on this project since June 1995.\nKristi previously served as archivist for Senator George Mitchell of\nMaine and is also currently working for Senator Patrick Leahy of\nVermont. A native of Austin, TX, Kristi is the daughter of Les and\nBarbara King. She graduated from the University of Texas in 1988 and\ncompleted her graduate education at the University of Maryland in 1995.\nKristi and her husband Mike have one daughter, Madeleine, who recently\ncelebrated her second birthday. I have appreciated Kristi's thorough\nwork and attention to detail. I am confident that my documents and\nmemorabilia are in good hands.\n\n kimberly mcdonald\n\n Kim has been with my staff since November 1991. She started out as a\nlegislative correspondent, researching and formulating responses to\nconstituent mail. In 1995, she was promoted to caseworker where she\nacts as a liaison between constituents and Federal, State or local\ngovernment agencies. Her areas of responsibility include Aging, Foreign\nAffairs, Government Affairs, Health, Immigration, Labor, Postal Affairs\nand Social Security. As you can imagine, with such a wide range of\nissues, Kim stays busy. She has worked\n\n[[Page S12438]]\n\nwith me to help countless Alabamians who thought they had no where to\nturn. It was only about a year ago that our staff celebrated Kim's\nmarriage to Curtis F.M. McDonald, our last ``office'' wedding. I have\nenjoyed working with Kim and am sure that she will continue to achieve\ngreat things.\n\n tom mcmahon\n\n Tom McMahon has been my press secretary since February 1989. As my\nchief spokesperson, Tom has to be conversant on a wide variety of\nissues. In this area he has proven himself as a true ``renaissance\nman,'' able to knowledgeably discuss everything from bankruptcy reform\nto crop insurance. Tom came to Washington in 1987 as press secretary to\nthe late Representative Bill Nichols of Alabama. Prior to that, he\nworked in university relations at his alma mater, Auburn University. In\nfact, Tom leads the ``Auburn gang'' in my office as a former president\nof the Metro Washington Auburn Club. He graduated from Auburn in 1984\nwith a degree in communications. Before graduation, he was station\nmanager at Auburn's WEGL-FM radio and worked as an anchor and reporter\nat WAUD-AM radio, also in Auburn. He and his wife Diane, a native of\nScottsboro, AL, now live in the Washington area. I have appreciated the\noutstanding work Tom has done over the years and am sure we will\ncontinue to hear great things from him in the future.\n\n jacqueline a. natter\n\n Jackie joined my staff as a legislative correspondent in November\n1994, after serving an internship at the State Department's Bureau for\nPolitical-Military Affairs. While she was studying international\nrelations and English at Georgetown University, from which she\ngraduated in 1994, Jackie completed an internship in my office and\nworked as a research assistant for the National War College. As a self-\ndescribed ``military brat,'' her interest in military affairs started\nat a very young age, and has continued through her academic and\nprofessional work. Currently serving as a legislative assistant\nhandling national defense, space, and veterans issues, Jackie also\ncoordinates my military services academy nominations. She is the middle\ndaughter of Rear Admiral Jack and Nancy Natter of Birmingham and is\nlooking forward to returning to Alabama at some point in the future.\nShe has been a valuable addition to my staff and I know she will make\ntangible contributions to the fields of national defense and foreign\npolicy in the future.\n\n barry phelps\n\n A native of the Birmingham, AL area, Barry Phelps moved to Washington\nin 1989 after completing his master of public administration and\nbachelor of arts degrees at the University of Alabama. He came to work\nfor my office in the fall of 1990 as a legislative correspondent and 1\nyear later became my speechwriter. Since that time, he has\nsimultaneously handled legislative issues relating to foreign policy,\ninternational trade, and general governmental affairs. In addition to\nbeing an excellent ``wordsmith,'' Barry has also been instrumental to\nmy work as chairman of the Senate delegation to the North Atlantic\nAssembly, traveling either with me or as my representative to NAA\nmeetings in Berlin, Germany; Copenhagen, Denmark; Oslo, Norway; and\nTurin, Italy. In the fall of 1993, he began the graduate liberal arts\nprogram at Georgetown University, attending classes in the evenings and\non weekends. He completed his master of arts degree there in April\n1996, concentrating his studies in the area of international affairs.\nWe were not surprised to learn that Barry was ranked first in his\ngraduating class and had the honor of serving as commencement marshall.\n\n robert schultz\n\n Bob Schultz has been an outstanding recent addition to my staff in\nWashington. A Pennsylvania native and graduate of Dickinson College in\nCarlisle, Rob was brought on board earlier this year to handle the\nimportant task of compiling and summarizing my 18-year Senate\nlegislative record. He completed a similar project for former Senator\nDon Riegle of Michigan in 1993 and 1994. Since he has been here, he has\ncompiled my record in certain policy areas, such as defense and foreign\npolicy, agriculture, court reform and judiciary, civil rights, and\nspace exploration and NASA. Rob has done an incredible job under severe\ntime constraints, and we could not have succeeded without him.\n\n barbara sherrill\n\n I noted in my retirement announcement that Tuscumbia, AL, is the best\nlittle town in America to go home to. Barbara Sherrill, a secretary and\ncaseworker in my Tuscumbia office, figured that out years ago. A native\nof Waukegan, IL, Barbara worked in Washington, DC, for the Air Force at\nthe Pentagon. Her husband, Estes, is a native of Tuscumbia, so in 1971\nafter he retired as an Air Force pilot, their family moved back to that\narea. Barbara joined my staff in 1985, working with my chief of staff,\nthe late Bill Gardiner. Her assistance has been invaluable to me as\nwell as to the many constituents who call or drop by the Tuscumbia\noffice seeking help. She has said that her greatest reward is hearing\nconstituents say that the help they received from our office has made a\ndifference in their lives. Barbara has three children--Beth, Martha,\nand Andy--and three grandchildren--Benjamin, Elizabeth, and Rachel.\n\n samantha smith\n\n Two positions in a Senate office that are usually considered\n``gatekeepers'' to the member are receptionist and personal scheduler.\nBy that definition, Samantha Smith is the ultimate ``gatekeeper,''\nserving on my staff since August 1993--first as a receptionist and then\nas scheduler. Born in Florence, AL, she is the middle daughter of Judge\nand Mrs. Larry Mack Smith. Samantha graduated from Hollins College in\nVirginia in 1992 with a degree in French. She spent a total of 2 years\nin France both as a student and as a teacher before joining my staff.\nHer ability to juggle the hectic schedule requests that come into my\noffice has been a tremendous asset to me. I appreciate the fine job she\nhas done.\n\n mary k. speis\n\n Mary Speis has been with my staff ever since the beginning of my\ntenure in 1979. Her career on Capitol Hill, however, goes all the way\nback to 1965, when she served as an assistant to former Illinois\nCongressman Barratt O'Hara. A native of Washington, DC, her Alabama\nties came about thanks to her sister, Jackie, who worked for Alabama\nCongressman Tom Bevill before moving to Athens, Greece to be with her\nhusband, a native of that beautiful country. Mary has often visited her\nsister in Greece during the summer recess periods. A graduate of the\nUniversity of Maryland with a fine arts degree, she landed a job with\nformer Alabama Senator James B. Allen working with the legislative\nassistants. In 1978, after the death of Senator Allen, she worked for\nhis wife, Marion, who succeeded him in the Senate. In 1979, she came to\nmy office to serve as an aid to the legislative assistants. In 1985,\nshe began working as my personal assistant and has become very special\nto me and the rest of the staff.\n\n yolanda angeline turner\n\n Yolanda Turner came on board our ``Senate ship'' in August 1992 as a\nstaff assistant working with the office manager and correspondence\nmanagement staff. The daughter of Mrs. Velda A. Ragland and Mr. Glenn\nA. Turner, she is from Suitland, MD. Her mother and sister, Monique A.\nTurner, work for Senator Bill Bradley, just down the hall from Yolanda.\nTheir work in the Senate is truly a ``family affair.'' Before joining\nour office, she was a clerk typist for the resource management staff at\nthe U.S. Department of Agriculture. We were all excited earlier this\nyear by the birth of Yolanda's daughter, Breanna Akira Turner.\n\n Stanley vines\n\n If you want to know about voting statistics and election demographics\nin the State of Alabama, Stanley Vines is the man to see. With over 20\nyears of involvement in Alabama politics, he has gathered a wealth of\ninformation about voting trends. Stanley's political bloodline runs\ndeep--his father's family has been active in politics in the Bessemer\narea for over a century. He began political work in 1976 and since that\ntime, has set up phone banks and helped runs numerous campaigns for\nAlabama candidates. Stanley began serving as field representative in my\nBirmingham office in 1982, after a 41-year career with American Cast\nIron Pipe Co. In the years since, he has helped me better present the\npeople of\n\n[[Page S12439]]\n\nAlabama by keeping me abreast of the issues and events going on in that\narea. Born in Watson, AL, Stanley graduated from Birmingham's Phillips\nHigh School and attended Jefferson State Junior College. Stanley and\nhis wife, Ethel Catherine Vines, have two sons, Thomas and James.\n\n heidi wagner\n\n Heidi Wagner has served as a front-office receptionist in my personal\noffice and most recently as clerk and staff assistant for the\nSubcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts minority staff.\nA Mobile, AL native, she graduated from the University of South Alabama\nand is working on a masters degree at American University here in\nWashington. She is the portrait of cool under pressure, since she is\nalways able to handle even the most demanding tasks and situations with\ngrace, professionalism, and good humor. She is sort of a word\n``connoisseur,'' constantly challenging staff with the presentation of\nnew words and definitions to enhance their vocabulary. Her ``Word of\nthe Day'' feature appearing on computer screens each morning was often\na welcome way to begin the day.\n\n sally walburn\n\n The first voice you hear when you call into my Washington office is\nthat of Sally Walburn. Her cheery ``Senator Heflin's office, this is\nSally. May I help you?'' has opened up hundreds of conversations with\nAlabamians. Sally has been my receptionist since June 1996. A native of\nTuscaloosa, AL, she is the youngest child of Dr. and Mrs. James\nWalburn. Sally graduated from Ole Miss in May 1996 with a degree in\nEnglish. Although her time on my staff has been brief, she has\ndemonstrated her outstanding abilities in dealing with constituents on\nthe ``front line.'' I wish her every future success.\n\n james g. whiddon iii\n\n Jim Whiddon is currently serving as my counsel on the Subcommittee on\nAdministrative Oversight and the Courts and as legislative assistant\nfor energy and natural resources issues. He has done an outstanding job\non these and other issues that have come his way since joining the\nstaff in 1993. He has been especially helpful on bankruptcy reform and\nthe constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Before moving to\nWashington, he worked in Atlanta. Jim, a native of Montgomery, attended\nthe University of Alabama, where he earned his bachelor of science\ndegree at Samford University in Birmingham, where he obtained his juris\ndoctor degree from the Cumberland School of Law. He served as a law\nclerk to the Honorable Rodney R. Steele, Chief Judge of the U.S.\nBankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama.\n\n janetta whitt-mitchell\n\n Janetta Whitt-Mitchell is a native of Mobile, AL. She graduated from\nTuskegee University and is a longtime community activist and energetic\nadvocate for the improvement of social conditions. Through her work as\nmy Mobile field representative and other leadership activities, she had\nhelped communities address needs related to health care, employment,\nhuman rights, education, law enforcement, economics, and drug abuse.\nShe is a member of the New South Coalition and an associate of the\nNational Organization for Women. She is also first vice president of\nMobile's Human Rights Commission and serves on the board of directors\nof the National Coalition of 100 Black Women's Mobile County Chapter.\nThe daughter of Mr. Charles and Mrs. Mary Lee Whitt, she is married to\nDr. Joseph Colvis Mitchell. Janetta has been an invaluable member of my\nState staff and I truly appreciate her hard work and advocacy on so\nmany issues and projects.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12435", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE KIKA DE LA GARZA", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12435", "S12435", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12435", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12435]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE KIKA DE LA GARZA\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the\nHonorable Kika de la Garza.\n There is nobody in the U.S. Congress more deserving of a tribute than\nthe distinguished and longtime chairman of the House Agriculture\nCommittee and defender of rural America and family farms.\n Kika de la Garza began his elected public service with six terms in\nthe Texas House of Representatives and was first elected to the U.S.\nHouse of Representatives in 1964. Kika was immediately appointed to the\nAgriculture Committee and has served as the committee chairman since\n1981. As a matter of fact, Kika was the first Hispanic American to\nhead-up a standing committee of the House of Representatives. Kika de\nla Garza is very proud of his Hispanic heritage, and with good reason.\nKika can trace his ancestry back to one of the ruling families of Spain\nand to one of the earliest settlers of Texas. Don Martin de Leon and\nhis wife, Dona de la Garza, petitioned the Spanish Governor in San\nAntonio for the right to establish a permanent settlement in Texas long\nbefore Moses Austin had received permission. Kika is also proud of his\nAlabama ancestry, as he often reminds me that he can trace some of his\nforebears to Etowah County, AL.\n During his tenure as committee chairman, Kika de la Garza has\nsuccessfully guided the passage of three omnibus farm bills. He is also\nresponsible for a major overhaul of the agricultural lending system,\nFederal crop insurance reform, reorganization of the USDA, and reforms\nin pesticide laws. Chairman de la Garza has also brought special\nattention to rural development and the needs of rural families. He has\nfought tirelessly for rural development programs such as rural waste\nand water systems. Through this strong commitment and leadership on\nbehalf of rural America, his efforts were recognized with the\nestablishment of an empowerment zone in south Texas, one of only three\nin rural America.\n I recall working closely with Kika de la Garza over the years. We\nhave worked many long hours together to restructure the Farm Credit\nSystem and provide disaster assistance when our Nation's producers have\nsuffered from drought and other natural disasters. However, what comes\nto mind when I think of Kika De la Garza is his invaluable leadership\nin defense of the peanut program. It may come as a surprise to some,\nbut the peanut program is vitally important to Alabama and I have\npersonally fought hard to preserve this program. Had it not been for\nChairman de la Garza, though, we would not have been able to maintain\nthis program that is also an integral part of Texas agriculutre. Many\nwere the occasions that I came to Kika and I told him that I needed his\nhelp and without fail, we were able to hold off efforts to eliminate\nthe peanut program. For this, I am deeply grateful to Kika.\n As Kika de la Garza leaves Congress and returns to Texas, we are\ntruly witnessing the end of an era. Kika de la Garza has outlasted Bob\nPoage, Herman Talmadge and Jamie Whitten to become the dean of American\nAgriculture. Rural America has had no stronger advocate than Kika de la\nGarza, he has indeed been the champion of the small farmer.\n When Kika and his wife, Lucille, return to Texas, they will return\nhome to Mission. Mission, TX, is known for producing famous Texans,\namong them include Tom Landry and Lloyd Bentsen. However, none have\ncontributed more to improving the lives and living conditions of all\nAmericans. Congress will indeed be a different place next year and it\nwill sorely miss the wisdom and leadership of Kika de la Garza.\n From the beginning, man has been at work in agriculture. In Genesis\nChapter 3, Verse 23, Moses writes, ``Therefore the Lord God sent him\nforth from the Garden of Eden, to till the Ground from whence he was\ntaken''. Although there are tremendous challenges that lie ahead, the\nSun shall rise tomorrow, and we can bear fruit for our neighbors and\nfriends and those who are without nourishment. As we strive to feed a\ngrowing population, protect our environment, and keep farmers and\nranchers strong, I am confident that with God's guidance, those who\nrely upon him will succeed. We have all been blessed to have had the\nwisdom and leadership of Kika de la Garza. As Americans we are all\nbetter for his service to this great country. As Kika and his wife,\nLucille return home, as Mike and I are returning home, we wish them\nboth the very best for many years to come. It has been my honor to have\nserved with Kika de la Garza.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12439-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE SCHOOL OF NURSING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12439", "S12439", "[{\"name\": \"Paul S. Sarbanes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12439", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12439]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE SCHOOL OF NURSING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE\n\n Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to offer my\ncongratulations to the School of Nursing at the University of Maryland\nBaltimore campus and its dean, Dr. Barbara Heller, as ground breaking\nbegins for a new, state-of-the-art facility designed to provide an\nexceptional environment for students to obtain a high-technology,\ninteractive nursing education.\n The 150,000-square-foot building will combine cutting edge technology\nwith the existing topnotch, challenging curriculum. Since its\nestablishment in 1889, the school of nursing in Baltimore has proven to\nbe a nationally recognized leader in the nursing profession, providing\nhigh quality, specialized training for nurses across the country. The\nschool ranks consistently among the top 10 schools of nursing in the\nUnited States and was recently listed as sixth in the Nation by U.S.\nNews & World Report.\n The school is a leading supplier of professional nurses for Maryland,\nwith close to 82 percent of its graduates practicing in the State. With\nthe increased demand for well-prepared nurses in health care delivery,\nI am confident that the school's graduates will provide this\nexceptional care to Maryland residents, as well as to all of our\nNation's citizens.\n As the first school in the world with a nursing informatics program,\nas well as the Nation's first program in nursing health policy, the\nSchool of Nursing at the University of Maryland Baltimore campus is a\nleader in providing the innovative knowledge and skills required to\npractice in an ever-changing profession. The school currently offers\nconcentrations in a variety of fields including oncology, additions,\nneonatal intensive care, primary care, gerontology, informatics, and\ncommunity-based care.\n Mr. President, I was privileged to attend the ground breaking\nceremony for this exceptional facility on September 27. I urge my\ncolleagues today to join me once again in recognizing the school of\nnursing for its dedication to innovative educational programs of the\nhighest caliber, its focus on community service, and its commitment to\nclinical research. The gifted students who will receive their education\nin this new facility will prove critical in ensuring that the people of\nMaryland and across the Nation will receive quality care in our\nchanging health care environment.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12439-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. MEMORIAL", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12439", "S12440", "[{\"name\": \"Paul S. Sarbanes\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12439", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12439-S12440]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. MEMORIAL\n\n Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate\nearlier this month passed legislation, as part of the omnibus parks\nbill, to authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a\nmemorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of Columbia.\n I first introduced this legislation in the U.S. Senate in 1985 and\nhave reintroduced it in each succeeding Congress. While we have been\nable to move this legislation through the Senate in two previous\nCongresses, until now it has failed to pass the House of\nRepresentatives. Fortunately, the bill has now also passed in the House\nof Representatives, thanks to the good work of Congresswoman Morella\nand Congressman Dixon.\n Since 1955, when in Montgomery, AL, Dr. King became a national hero\nand\n\n[[Page S12440]]\n\nan acknowledged leader in the civil rights struggle, until his tragic\ndeath in Memphis, TN, in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., made an\nextraordinary contribution to the evolving history of our Nation.\n His courageous stands and unyielding belief in the tenet of\nnonviolence reawakened our Nation to the injustice and discrimination\nwhich continued to exist 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation\nand the enactment of the guarantees of the 14th and 15th amendments to\nthe Constitution.\n Mr. President, Martin Luther King, Jr., dedicated his life to\nachieving equal treatment and enfranchisement for all Americans through\nnonviolent means, and a memorial in the Nation's Capital honoring Dr.\nKing's tremendous contributions is long overdue. I want to again extend\nmy thanks to all those who have worked so hard to bring this effort to\nfruition. Without their tireless efforts over the years, this important\nlegislation would not have been enacted.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12439", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THORTON STEARNS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12439", "S12439", "[{\"name\": \"John F. Kerry\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12439", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12439]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THORTON STEARNS\n\n Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer\ncongratulations to Thorton Stearns, a graduate of the Massachusetts\nInstitute of Technology and longtime resident of Winchester, MA, who is\nthe first recipient of the Eugene Joseph McCarthy Philanthropist of the\nYear Award, presented by Winchester Hospital.\n For more than 15 years, Mr. Stearns has generously supported the\nhospital's philanthropic efforts. He has embodied the spirit of\nphilanthropy of Mr. Eugene McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy was a quiet, private,\nbut generous man who upon his passing left Winchester Hospital and\nnumerous other charities a $1 million bequest.\n Thorton Stearns, known affectionately to the staff of Winchester\nHospital as ``Thorny,'' has served the hospital as a corporator. He has\nacknowledged that his philanthropy has a component of self-interest,\nhaving said, ``I have used the hospital and I might need its services\nagain; therefore, it is important that I support the hospital\nfinancially.''\n Now chairman of the Vacuum Barrier Corp., which he founded in 1958,\nThorton Stearns continues to be an active member of the Winchester\ncommunity. I am pleased to recognize his efforts on behalf of\nWinchester Hospital and wish to congratulate him on being chosen as the\nfirst recipient of its Philanthropist of the Year Award.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12440-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12440", "S12440", "[{\"name\": \"Strom Thurmond\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12440", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12440]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO LT. GEN. RONALD R. BLANCK\n\n Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, reaching the top of one's\nprofession is perhaps the most rewarding experience any person can\nachieve in their career, and today, I pay tribute to a good friend, Lt.\nGen. Ronald R. Blanck, who has reached the pinnacle of the Army's\nMedical Corps with his promotion to the position of Surgeon General of\nthe Army.\n When one thinks of military medicine, the image that comes to the\nminds of most people is that of an Army medic rushing to the aid of a\nfallen comrade. While there is probably no sight more comforting to a\nwounded soldier than a medic, Army medicine goes far beyond the\nsoldiers who brave fire on battlefields in order to save lives.\nIncluded in the Army Medical Corps are doctors, nurses, and specialists\nof all kinds who serve in a sophisticated system of clinics, hospitals,\nand research facilities. No matter where they are stationed, soldiers\nhave access to excellent care thanks to the efforts of the selfless men\nand women of the Medical Corps and the leadership provided by the\nSurgeon General of the Army.\n As he packs his bags and leaves the Capital area for his new job at\nFort Sam Houston, TX, General Blanck assumes this post with the praises\nof his patients, as well as his peers in both the Army and in the\nmedical fields of the other services. Throughout his career as a doctor\nand Army officer, the new surgeon general has established a respected,\nand well-deserved, record for professionalism, leadership and, most\nimportantly, compassionate care. Beginning with his initial assignment\nas a battalion surgeon in Vietnam to his tenure as the commander of\nWalter Reed Army Medical Center, General Blanck has repeatedly sought\ninnovative and more efficient manners in which to treat patients,\ndemonstrated an ability to find solutions to complex tasks, and been an\nadvocate for research into treatment that will benefit soldiers.\nWithout question, General Blanck brings an impressive set of\ncredentials to the Army's top medical post.\n Mr. President, as General Blanck assumes the responsibilities of\nbeing the principal medical advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Army,\nI am certain that he will approach his job with enthusiasm,\nseriousness, and with a commitment to excellence. I wish him continued\nsuccess in his duties and commend him for the service he has rendered\nthe Army and the Nation.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12440-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MABEL LEE BURROUGHS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12440", "S12441", "[{\"name\": \"Strom Thurmond\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12440", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12440-S12441]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MABEL LEE BURROUGHS\n\n Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I today pay tribute to Mrs. Mabel\nLee Burroughs, who recently passed away after leading a very long and\nrewarding life.\n The region of South Carolina that stretches from just north of\nCharleston up to the North Carolina line, and only a few hundreds\nwest--literally not much further than a stone's throw from the edge of\nthe sand dunes--is known as the Grand Strand. This area has always been\nfamous for having some of America's most beautiful beaches, and for\nyears it has been one of the favored vacation destinations of people\nfrom around the world.\n Much of the popularity of the Grand Strand can be attributed to the\nwork and vision of the Burroughs family. The late James Burroughs,\nMabel's husband, was a successful community and business leader who,\nalong with a number of other individuals, became interested in the\ncommercial potential of the Grand Strand as a resort area. In the years\nfollowing World War II, these development pioneers were responsible for\nconverting Myrtle Beach from a quiet and little known stretch of\nsunkissed sand to an area that offers unlimited recreational\nopportunities for tourists and South Carolina residents. This tradition\nof entrepreneurial spirit and business success is being carried on by\nEgerton Burroughs, the son of Mabel and James, who is the developer of\nthe successful and popular family attraction, Broadway on the Beach.\n Without question, the late Mrs. Burroughs played an important role in\nher husband's business successes, and certainly served as a trusted\nadviser in his dealings. For almost 20 years she served as an account\nassociate with the family-owned firm, Myrtle Beach Farms, as well as\nbeing an original trustee and secretary treasurer of the Burroughs\nFoundation, a philanthropic organization.\n Mrs. Burroughs was more than a loyal wife, dedicated mother, and\nsuccessful businesswoman, she was also a public spirited citizen who\ngave much of herself to the people of Myrtle Beach. Born in Loris, SC,\nwhich is just a short distance from the beach and is in the heart of my\nState's tobacco country, Mabel Burroughs learned at an early age the\nimportance of community and working together. Throughout her life, Mrs.\nBurroughs was active in a number of causes that sought to make\n\n[[Page S12441]]\n\nour State a better place, and she approached these endeavors with\nenthusiasm and commitment. Additionally, she was a devoted Christian\nwho gave freely of her time and was strongly involved in her church and\nparish.\n Mr. President, with the death of Mabel Lee Burroughs, South Carolina\nhas lost one of its most well known, well liked, and well respected\ndaughters and business leaders. I join the entire Burroughs family in\nmourning this passing and extend my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Burroughs'\nsister, Ruby Lee Hughes; two sons, Egerton and Howard; and her two\ngrandchildren.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12440", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HAROLD JINKS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12440", "S12440", "[{\"name\": \"Dale Bumpers\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12440", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12440]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HAROLD JINKS\n\n Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, Arkansas lost one of its treasures\nlast week. Harold Jinks of Piggott, AR, whom Arkansans affectionately\nrefer to as ``Mr. Democrat,'' passed away at the age of 90.\n If the term ``yellow-dog Democrat'' were in the dictionary, Harold\nJinks would be listed as the definition. Though Harold Jinks studied to\nbe a farmer in school, it was the study and practice of politics that\nsustained him throughout his life.\n A friend to many Presidents and to every major Democratic\nofficeholder in Arkansas, Harold Jinks brought enthusiasm into every\nrook he entered. He admonished young people about their duty to vote\nand be involved in politics. To Harold, being a mere spectator in\npolitics was a sin. You had a duty to be a player.\n Active in his community and his church, Harold worked for many years\nat USDA and was at one time a special assistant to the regional\ndirector of the U.S. Postal Service.\n Harold was southwest regional director for the Democratic National\nConvention in 1957 and attended most conventions thereafter either as a\ndelegate or strong advocate for the national ticket. He chaired the\nArkansas Committee on Seniors for Carter-Mondale.\n In retirement, if you could call it that with Harold, he authored\nbooks and founded the Senior Democrats of Arkansas and served as\nchairman of the Arkansas Joint Legislative Committee of the National\nRetired Teachers Association and AARP. He also found time to organize\nthe Washington-based Buy American Action Coalition to promote the\nbuying of American products.\n He was a walking whirlwind of activity, and always at work promoting\na cause or a candidate. A virtual encyclopedia, he enjoyed the history\nof politics as much as he did the campaigns.\n Mr. President, Harold Jinks taught us all the importance of being\ninvolved in our Government. He chided us when he thought we were\ndragging our feet and applauded us when we were conscientious. He was\nloved by those of us in Arkansas who shared his passion for politics,\nand he will be missed by all who had the good fortune to know him and\nbe touched by him and his infectious enthusiasm for the political\nprocess.\n Betty and I extend our deepest sympathy to Harold's lovely and\ndevoted wife, Wilma. We owe her our gratitude as well for sharing\nHarold with us.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12441", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "REPORT CONCERNING THE CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1996", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12441", "S12442", "[{\"name\": \"Jesse Helms\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12441", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12441-S12442]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n REPORT CONCERNING THE CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY\n [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1996\n\n Mr. HELMS. I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention a\nreport submitted by the Secretary of State on ``The Settlement of\nOutstanding United States Claims to Confiscated Property in Cuba'' as\nmandated by Public Law 104-114, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic\nSolidarity [LIBERTAD] Act, and I ask that it be printed in the Record.\n The report follows:\n\n Department of State,\n\n Washington, DC, September 27, 1996.\n Hon. Jesse Helms,\n Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate.\n Dear Mr. Chairman: In accordance with the provisions of the\n Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, we are\n filing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the report\n entitled the Settlement of Outstanding United States Claims\n to Confiscated Property in Cuba, required by Section 207 of\n the Act.\n Copies of this document are also being filed with the House\n International Relations Committee, the Senate Appropriations\n Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.\n Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any\n questions on this issue or on any other matter.\n Sincerely,\n\n Barbara Larkin,\n\n Assistant Secretary,\n Legislative Affairs.\n Enclosure: Section 207 report.\n\nSettlement of Outstanding United States Claims to Confiscated Property\n in Cuba\n\n (Report to Congress Under Section 207 of the Cuban Liberty and\n Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996)\n\n Section 207 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity\n (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 requires the Secretary of State to\n ``provide a report to the appropriate congressional\n committees containing an assessment of the property dispute\n question in Cuba.'' Pursuant to section 207(a), included in\n this report are the following areas of review:\n An estimate of the number and amount of claims to property\n confiscated by the Cuban government that are held by United\n States nationals in addition to those claims certified under\n section 507 of the International Claims Settlement Act of\n 1949, 22 U.S.C. 1643f;\n An assessment of the significance of promptly resolving\n confiscated property claims to the revitalization of the\n Cuban economy;\n A review and evaluation of technical and other assistance\n that the United States could provide to help either a\n transition government in Cuba or a democratically elected\n government in Cuba establish mechanisms to resolve property\n questions;\n An assessment of the role and types of support the United\n States could provide to help resolve claims to property\n confiscated by the Cuban government that are held by United\n States nationals who did not receive or qualify for\n certification under section 507 of the International Claims\n Settlement Act of 1949; and\n An assessment of any areas requiring legislative review or\n action regarding the resolution of property claims in Cuba\n prior to a change of government in Cuba.\n\n estimate of claims\n\n Under the Cuban Claims Program, established by Title V of\n the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended\n in 1964, 8,816 claims were filed with the Foreign Claims\n Settlement Commission (FCSC). In 1972, the FCSC completed its\n Cuban claims program and certified 5,911 claims against the\n Cuban Government. The value of these claims was originally\n $1.8 billion, but is now estimated with interest to be\n approximately $6 billion.\n No systematic accounting has ever been done for claims of\n U.S. nationals in addition to those claims cetified under the\n FCSC's Cuban Claims Program. Virtually all such claims are\n held by individuals and companies that were not U.S.\n nationals or entities at the time of the loss. Based on the\n approximately 1.5 million Cuban-Americans in the United\n States and the U.S. government's previous experience with\n claims resolution, we would estimate that there may be from\n 75,000 to 200,000 such claims. It is more difficult still to\n estimate the value of these claims, but it could run easily\n into the tens of billions of dollars.\n\n significance of prompt resolution to the cuban economy\n\n The prompt resolution of confiscated property claims is\n essential to the revitalization of the Cuban economy under a\n transition or democratic government. Cuba's recovery from\n decades of economic mismanagement will require the creation\n of a climate friendly to investment, and a clear commitment\n to property rights is indispensable for creating such a\n climate. Progress in resolving uncompensated claims will\n serve as a signal to new investors, foreign and domestic,\n that transition and democratic governments understand and\n respect the importance of private property.\n It will also be particularly critical to clear up questions\n concerning title to commercial properties that play, or could\n play, major roles in Cuba's economy. Delays in doing so will\n almost certainly delay investment necessary to continue,\n restore and/or upgrade operations at commercial facilities.\n Delays of this kind would constitute serious setbacks to a\n new government's efforts to increase employment and restore\n the country's fiscal health.\n Beyond building confidence in Cuba among potential new\n investors, the process of claims resolution, if carried out\n creatively and effectively, may itself generate investment in\n Cuba by the holders of claims. Negotiating a resolution of\n certified claims will be an important step. Holders of\n certified U.S. claims in Cuba include some of the United\n States' largest and most successful corporations, many of\n which may be interested in renewing their involvement in Cuba\n under the right conditions. Resolution of non-certified\n claims will also be important to attracting new investment.\n While prompt resolution of property claims is essential, it\n will not be easy. Experience in other countries making the\n transition from Marxist to market economies has shown that\n resolution of most expropriation claims can take several\n years, even when governments move expeditiously to set up the\n proper mechanisms to do so. While they are engaged in these\n efforts, these new governments have also been faced with a\n myriad of other political and economic challenges. The United\n States' goal in these transitions has been--as it will be in\n Cuba--to help the new governments maintain stability,\n overcome these many challenges and firmly establish\n democratic governments and market economies. Within this\n broader context, and balancing objectives when necessary,\n prompt resolution of property claims is a priority for the\n U.S. government, both in order to protect the interests of\n U.S. claimants and to stimulate investment in a new Cuba.\n\n assistance and support for resolving property claims\n\n Consistent with long-standing practice and international\n law, the United States would expect to assist U.S. nationals\n with claims against the Government of Cuba. One aspect of\n such assistance may be the negotiation of a lump-sum\n settlement of certified claims, as forseen by the FCSC's\n Cuban Claims Program under Title V of the International\n Claims Settlement Act. The timing of any such negotiation\n cannot be predicted now.\n Resolution of non-certified property claims and disputes in\n Cuba could be facilitated by technical and other assistance\n from the U.S. government. Programs of this kind could assist\n officials of a transition or democratic Cuban government in\n the development of policy alternatives, formulation of legal\n and administrative mechanisms, public education campaigns and\n institution-building. Such assistance may enhance the\n government's ability to resolve claims and thereby improve\n claimants' prospects of obtaining compensation or restitution\n for confiscated property. Assistance in this area could\n include help in interpreting and evaluating the experience of\n other countries in resolving property issues, assessing the\n potential impact of various alternatives, and training\n officials in consensus-building processes in Cuba. In one\n instance, a U.S. technical adviser worked with a government's\n ministry of finance to develop a compensation program based\n on indemnification bonds.\n American assistance would reflect the lessons learned from\n major property disputes with respect to governments in\n transition to democracy. Elements of a successful claims\n resolution strategy include:\n Rapid establishment of a legal framework for property\n ownership.\n An administrative process for claims resolution that is\n centralized, transparent and simple.\n A credible and fair system for payment of compensation to\n legitimate prior owners where restitution is not provided.\n Effective enforcement of both restitution and the payment\n of compensation from national treasury reserves.\n U.S. assistance and support for resolving property claims\n might therefore include the following elements:\n U.S. technical advisers could assist in the drafting of\n legislation and supporting regulations which are essential to\n creating a functioning compensation program. Some elements of\n a program might include establishing legal bases for\n arbitration mechanisms, creating financial instruments and\n other reforms to underpin compensation schemes, and\n suggesting property titling or registration reforms related\n to providing secure and transferable ownership rights of both\n claimants and individuals in Cuba.\n U.S. experts could review for a democratic or transitional\n government in Cuba the institutional support required for\n resolving\n\n[[Page S12442]]\n\n property disputes. This could include an assessment of the\n best institutional practices developed elsewhere, and\n development of the information and administrative systems\n necessary for effective implementation. Key to getting such a\n program started could be various sorts of training, advice\n regarding information systems, hardware and software,\n property surveying and registration systems, and assessing\n operational, management and staffing costs for\n administration.\n U.S. advisers could help in the development of a plan for\n educating the Cuban public about the nature and basis of such\n a system. Such a program could require a significant\n commitment of effort and resources by a future Cuban\n government and the U.S. government. This effort could focus\n on gauging public opinion and identifying concerns and issues\n of potential stake holders in the reconciliation process to\n ensure policy and legal solutions are responsive.\n Intenational financial institutions could develop and carry\n out programs with similar goals and along these lines.\n Various agencies of the U.S. government may be available to\n provide such assistance. For instance, the FCSC may be able\n to offer technical assistance to a transition or democratic\n government in Cuba, as well as to interested NGOs and\n independent organizations, in the efforts to resolve property\n disputes. Such assistance could include advice on structuring\n a claims adjudication or arbitration mechanism is Cuba,\n assistance in devising procedures for collecting, hearing and\n disposing of the claims, and advice on principles to follow\n in resolving claims involving property that has been\n substantially altered subsequent to being taken.\n\n assisting u.s. nationals without certified claims\n\n Assisting a democratic or transition government in its\n efforts to establish an efficient property resolution\n mechanism will directly support the efforts of non-certified\n claimants to obtain compensation in Cuba. In addition, the\n U.S. government may provide various forms of support to U.S.\n nationals wishing to present claims to such a domestic Cuban\n body. Such support could include ensuring that interested\n persons obtain the necessary papers to file their claims;\n encouraging a transition or democratic government to resolve\n such claims promptly and effectively; monitoring the progress\n of claims settlement and, where necessary, offering creative\n solutions to difficult problems; and providing informal\n assistance to claimants seeking to understand the process and\n present a claim. In the case of Central and Eastern Europe,\n for instance, the U.S. government--principally through the\n special envoy for property claims in the region--has actively\n promoted the resolution of claims arising from both Nazi\n confiscations and Communist nationalizations.\n\n legislative review\n\n At this time, there are no areas requiring further\n legislative action regarding the resolution of property\n claims in Cuba prior to a change of government in Cuba. Once\n a transition or democratic government comes to power in Cuba,\n however, it will be important for the Administration and\n Congress to consult closely as conditions change in Cuba to\n assist in the resolution of property claims in Cuba in a\n manner that contributes both to the development of a strong\n bilateral relationship with a democratic Cuba and to Cuba's\n economic recovery.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12442-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY ILL ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR 17TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP MEETING", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12442", "S12442", "[{\"name\": \"Bob Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12442", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12442]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nTRIBUTE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY ILL ON THE OCCASION\n OF THEIR 17TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP MEETING\n\n Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today pay tribute to the Alliance\nfor the Mentally Ill of New Hampshire on the occasion of their 17th\nAnnual Conference and Membership Meeting. This educational conference\nis being held on October 26 at Rundlett School in Concord, NH. Those\nparticipating will have an excellent opportunity to attend workshops,\nview informative displays, and talk to alliance members. I congratulate\nall the alliance volunteers for hosting this important conference and\nextend a special welcome to those who will be in attendance.\n The New Hampshire Alliance for the Mentally Ill strives to better the\nlives of those with mental illnesses or serious emotional disorders,\npromote the rights of the mentally ill, and educate the public about\nmental illness. Their goals are to highlight numerous services\navailable to the mentally ill, especially focusing on youngsters and\nseniors.\n I commend the New Hampshire Alliance for the Mentally Ill for their\nhard work and dedication to increasing the level of awareness of mental\nillness. Their conference will provide an excellent opportunity for\nthose attending to learn more about the alliance and their objectives.\nAgain, I would like to welcome all the participants who are attending\nthis educational conference and congratulate those who have worked so\nhard to organize the conference.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12442-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE'S NATURE CONSERVANCY CHAPTER FOR RECEIVING THE NATIONAL PROGRAM PROGRESS AWARD", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12442", "S12443", "[{\"name\": \"Bob Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12442", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12442-S12443]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nTRIBUTE TO NEW HAMPSHIRE'S NATURE CONSERVANCY CHAPTER FOR RECEIVING THE\n NATIONAL PROGRAM PROGRESS AWARD\n\n Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today pay tribute to New\nHampshire's Nature Conservancy for receiving the National Program\nProgress Award. The New Hampshire chapter was presented with this\naward, one of the Nature Conservancy's highest honors, at the Nature\nConservancy's National Annual Trustees Meeting on September 30.\n The New Hampshire chapter has earned this award for their outstanding\nwork in protecting Sheldrick Forest, a 227-acre old-growth forest\nlocated in Wilton, NH. The conservancy launched a multifaceted\ngrassroots campaign to save the forest from development. Through its\ncampaign the conservancy raised the property's purchasing price to\n$550,000. The New Hampshire chapter also purchased Sheldrick Forest,\nmaking it the conservancy's 17th preserve in the State. This was an\noutstanding accomplishment.\n In addition to the conservancy's dedicated actions to save Sheldrick\nForest its members were recognized for their efforts to protect the\nGreat Bay estuary system, for supporting the Maquipucuna Cloud Forest\nReserve in Ecuador, and for creating the Mount Teneriffe preserve in\nMilton, which is home to a federally listed endangered orchid species.\nThe New Hampshire Nature Conservancy chapter has worked hard to\npreserve New Hampshire's\n\n[[Page S12443]]\n\nbeautiful environment. The conservancy's members should be proud of\nthis distinguished award and their great success in preservation that\nit celebrates.\n A national awards committee, drawn from among the Nature\nConservancy's 50 State chapters, its 21 programs in Latin America, and\nits offices on the Pacific Rim and in Indonesia, selected the New\nHampshire Chapter for the National Program Progress Award. The award\nrecognizes a conservancy chapter that has made the greatest progress\nduring the past year in building its overall program, and achieving the\nconservancy's mission of protecting land that harbors rare and\nendangered plants, animals, and ecosystems.\n At the Nature Conservancy's National Annual Trustees Meeting last\nmonth, the group's president and CEO, John Sawhill, spoke about the\ndedication and inspiration of the New Hampshire chapter by saying, ``I\nwas amazed that so many people from all walks of life were involved in\nraising the money for this project and how the local community embraced\nour effort to save the forest * * * I believe Sheldrick Forest can\nserve as an inspiration to us all.'' The New Hampshire chapter sets an\nexcellent example for environmental preservation in New Hampshire and\nfor other parts of our country.\n The New Hampshire chapter has certainly made our State very proud of\ntheir efforts. Congratulations to the New Hampshire Nature Conservancy\non this distinguished award. May they continue to protect and preserve\nour beautiful New Hampshire's forests.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12442", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SPECIAL OLYMPICS AS THEY HOLD THEIR FIFTH ANNUAL FALL GAMES", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12442", "S12442", "[{\"name\": \"Bob Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12442", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12442]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nTRIBUTE TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SPECIAL OLYMPICS AS THEY HOLD THEIR FIFTH\n ANNUAL FALL GAMES\n\n Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today recognize the New Hampshire\nSpecial Olympics participants and volunteers as they hold their fifth\nannual fall games, their second largest event of the year. On October\n26, more than 550 athletes, 200 coaches, and 300 New Hampshire\nvolunteers will gather in Concord, NH to participate in the Special\nOlympics fall games. The games, which will be held on the beautiful\ncampus of St. Paul's School, are certain to be met with enthusiasm and\nexcitement by participants and volunteers alike. I would like to extend\na special New Hampshire welcome to everyone who will partake in this\nspecial day.\n Above all else, I would like to recognize the participants. All 550\nathletes devoted countless hours and a tremendous amount of hard work\nand perseverance in preparation for this event. I truly admire their\ndedication and courage as they come forward to compete in these seven\ndifficult sporting events. All of them are top-notch athletes and\nshould be very proud of their efforts. May all the Olympians enjoy\ntheir day.\n The New Hampshire Special Olympics fall games would not be possible\nwithout the help of so many volunteers who work behind the scenes.\nVolunteers are truly essential to the success of the fall Special\nOlympic games. I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to all the\nNew Hampshire volunteers who make this wonderful day possible.\n I would also like to commend New Hampshire Special Olympic's\nexecutive director, Mike Quinn, and his capable staff. They have\ndedicated countless hours of their time to make the Special Olympics a\nsuccess, and have allowed the residents of New Hampshire to come out\nand show their Granite State spirit.\n Without the support and contributions of a number of sponsors, the\nNew Hampshire Special Olympics would not be able to hold their fall\ngames. Among these supporters are St. Paul's School, the National\nGuard, Derryfield School, Merrimack County Savings Bank, AMR/Chaulk,\nAmbulance Services, and many more. Once again, I extend my thanks to\nthose who made a contribution to this phenomenal program.\n May the fifth annual fall games be a success and continue to flourish\nin the future. I wish all the Olympians the very best as they compete\nin the New Hampshire fall games. We are all very proud of you.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12443", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM AND MEDICAL RESEARCH", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12443", "S12445", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12443", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12443-S12445]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM AND MEDICAL RESEARCH\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, over the years, we have\nparticipated in many efforts to assist the people of Alabama and the\nNation in the area of health care, particularly in insuring adequate\nfunding for biomedical research programs. The various budget battles to\nensure that cancer research is maintained at the highest effective\nlevel became an annual effort during my tenure as a U.S. Senator.\n During the mid-1980's, it became necessary for me to author several\namendments to various spending bills in order for important cancer\nresearch to be adequately conducted.\n Cancer is a disease that knows no class, income levels, lifestyle,\nrace, or sex. It can strike anyone at any time, as evidenced by studies\nestimating that almost 1 million Americans develop this deadly disease\nannually.\n In Alabama, important research through grants from the National\nInstitutes of Health [NIH] is being carried on at 13 universities,\nhospitals, and research institutes. Research particularly crucial to\nour efforts to conquer cancer is being done at the University of South\nAlabama in Mobile, the Southern Research Institute in Birmingham, and\nthe University of Alabama at Birmingham. These institutions are well\nknown for their important contributions to cancer research.\n The cancer research community throughout America, and the world,\nknows that one of the true flagships of cancer research is the Cancer\nCore Center at UAB, which has been listed among the three top U.S.\ncenters for cancer research. It is one of the first centers recognized\nby the National Cancer Institute, and has experienced remarkable\ngrowth. In addition, it has developed some of the most sophisticated\nresources for basic science and clinical care in the southeast, and it\nis now a regional, national, and international resource for patient\ncare and research.\n Through the National Institutes of Health, we have been successful in\ngetting funds to establish grants for sickle cell centers at UAB, and\nthe University of South Alabama. Sickle cells, or sickle cell anemia,\nis predominately an inherited, chronic blood disease where the red\nblood cells become crescent shaped and function abnormally. This is how\nit got its name. The pains from this disease are due to aggregations of\nsickle cells causing a temporary blockage of the small blood vessels.\nThese cells are subject to early destruction in the circulation,\ncausing a chronic anemia. Although it occurs primarily in people of\nAfrican heritage, with one out of 400 African Americans affected, it\nalso occurs in persons from Mediterranean and other countries. A\nclinical alert issued by health care professionals in January 1995 by\nthe National Heart, Lung and Blood Institutes announced an effective\ntreatment of an anticancer drug which showed a remarkable reduction\nwith regard to the complications of this disease.\n In addition, other biomedical research is being conducted at Alabama\nA&M University, and Tuskegee University Veterinary Medicine program.\nBoth these historical black universities have received funds for\nbiomedical, as well as agriculture research. This includes my\nsponsorship of the amendment to the farm bill, providing $50 million to\nlegislation involving the 1890 land grant colleges, where Alabama A&M\nUniversity and Tuskegee University were the top beneficiaries.\n In the mid-1980's, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the\nUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB] made a major contribution to\nour Nation's cancer research efforts by managing a program for protein\ncrystal growth experiments on the space shuttle. For years, UAB has\nbeen a world leader in this type of research, with their knowledge\nhaving been crucial in the development of new drugs to treat critical\nillnesses. I feel considerable pride that I changed a working\nrelationship between UAB and Marshall Space Flight Center. The\nrestrictions on gravity, however, created difficulties in growing\nprotein crystals large enough for detailed study. In space, where there\nis no gravity, it was discovered that these crystals can be grown many\ntimes larger than on Earth, thus giving researchers samples large\nenough for accurate atomic characterization.\n During my years in the Senate, I have been an ardent believer of our\nspace program. I feel this contribution by Marshall Space Flight\nCenter, and UAB is indicative of the benefits society can reap from a\nsuccessful space program. Likewise, I have helped in restoring funds\nfor the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [NHLBI] of the\nNational Institutes of Health. Discussions have been held with Dr.\nClaude Lenfant, Director of NHLBI, on many occasions regarding the\nresearch at UAB in the area of cardiology, led by Dr. Gerald Pohost.\nBoth Dr. Lenfant and I have had the distinction of testifying before\nthis Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health\nand Human Services and Education and Related Agencies of the Senate\nAppropriations Committee, regarding this research.\n At UAB, the cardiology division is one of the leaders in the Nation\nin research and teaching in clinical diagnosis and treatment. With\nareas of special expertise in the treatment of sudden death,\ninterventional cardiology, cardiac transplants, and magnetic resonance\nimaging, the division continues to set the course for the future in\nbasic and clinical research, and for the treatment of all forms of\ncardiovascular disease.\n Over the years, I have strongly supported appropriations for the\nNational Institutes of Health. My testimony before the subcommittee\nfocused primarily on the critical importance of funding for the\nNational Cancer Institute, the Centers for Research Resources [NCRR],\nand the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In my opinion, NCRR\nnever received the attention it deserved.\n I was convinced that the biomedical research technology program at\nthe University of Alabama's center was outstanding. It involves a\nunique, high-field magnetic resource image. This device has the\npotential to study the biomedical basis of human diseases without\nbiopsy. These magnetic resonance mehtods have the capacity to determine\ntissue viability, as well as to examine biochemical and metabolic\nprocesses underlying heart disease, transplantation, rejection, and\nother common cardiac maladies.\n\n On several occasions, I visited the National Institutes of Health to\ndiscuss their programs and goals. I was most impressed with the\ncompetency and quality of their operations. NIH is responsible for\nplacing the United States in a position of preeminence in biomedical\nresearch and biotechnology. During my tenure in the Senate, it was\ndetermined that we could not let this prime example of excellence\ndeteriorate, especially when so many advances are being realized.\nSupporting the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute\n\n[[Page S12444]]\n\nhas been one of my pet priorities. It provides leadership for our\nnational programs dealing with diseases of the heart, blood vessels,\nblood and lungs, and the use and management of blood and blood\nresources.\n In 1989, Congress provided $640 million for heart disease research,\nand by 1994, these estimates had grown to $737 million. These figures\nare for heart disease research, and I am proud to have been a leader\nwith regard to providing Federal support in this area.\n For the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, appropriations\nincluding grants and direct operations went from $10,725,000 in 1950,\nto an appropriation of $1.2 billion in 1994. Perhaps because of my own\nhealth, I have great faith in the work of the National Heart, Lung and\nBlood Institute. In fact, my own heart problems were solved with many\ntechniques developed under advance research which took place at UAB in\nBirmingham, and elsewhere in the country. Drs. Pohost and Roubin--my\nphysicians in Birmingham--took excellent care of me, and showed me how\nmuch our country can benefit from clinical research supported by the\nHeart, Lung and Blood Institute.\n In February 1993, when the administration forwarded its budget\nproposal for 1994, it was $16 million less than the previous year's\nbudget. Immediately, I went to work with a group of my colleagues in\nthe House and Senate to increase the budget of the NHLBI to a more\nreasonable level of $1.27 billion, which was $75 million more than the\nadministration's request--an increase of $63 million over the 1993\nbudget. This set the stage for an annual increase. Also, this year, I\nurged Congress to establish a cardiovascular care consortium center to\nbe headed by Dr. Pohost at UAB. The Conference Report on Labor, Health\nand Human Services and Education Appropriations included a $2.5 million\nfor a project which the University Cardiovascular Care Consortium\n[UCCC] had proposed. It is called a best practices demonstration\nproject, and we were able to convince the Health Care Financing\nAdministration to endorse brief supportive language in the conference\nagreement to help ensure that this project recevies high priority.\n Although we were not able to adopt the provisions of the consortium\nin the appropriations bill, I have joined several Senators in\ncontacting officials of the Health Care Financing Administration,\nurging the officials to move forward with a best practices\ndemonstration project on congestive heart failure that the Senate\nCommittee on Appropriations referenced in its fiscal year 1997 report.\nCongestive heart failure is the leading cause of mortality among\nMedicare beneficiaries. It is also the most costly diagnosis for the\nMedicare Program. A successful effort to develop and implement\nimprovements in the quality and cost effectiveness of heart failure\ndiagnosis and treatment would improve patient outcomes, thus reducing\nMedicare expenditures.\n The most contentious battles in my fight for improving health care\nand disease prevention for all Americans involved the Medicaid Program.\nShortly after I took office in the U.S. Senate, officials of the\nAlabama Medicaid Agency contacted my office complaining that the Health\nCare Financing Administration in Washington was requiring the State of\nAlabama to return $10 million to the Federal Government. Apparently,\nthe State had authorized distribution of durable medical equipment,\nwhich at that time was not allowable under the Federal Medicaid\nregulations. The Medicaid Program is administered at the State level\nwithin certain general Federal guidelines. I was advised that the State\nof Alabama could ill-afford to lose $10 million from its Medicaid\nbudget. Therefore, my office successfully negotiated a settlement in\nfavor of the State of Alabama with HCFA officials involving this\ndispute of Medicaid funds.\n As with cancer research, funding for Medicaid was virtually an annual\nbattle. When Congress considered the 1993 omnibus budget reconciliation\nbill, I urged an amendment which was adopted, thus giving relief to\nhospitals that treated a high disproportionate share of poor patients.\nThis legislative action resulted in the State of Alabama receiving\nannually $93 million additional dollars in Medicaid funds. This was\nbecause of the transitional amendment to the Omnibus Budget\nReconciliation Act.\n During the summer of 1996, after the transitional period had passed,\na glitch again appeared in the flow of Federal funds to Alabama,\ncausing Federal officials to withhold about $94 million. I stayed in\nWashington during a recess period, endeavoring to work out a settlement\nof the issues between HCFA and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. We were\nable to negotiate a temporary settlement in this regard. The Alabama\nMedicaid Agency and my office negotiated with HCFA officials relative\nto a commitment by Alabama to comply with Federal requirements\nregarding patient's hospital payments, and to attempt to address HCFA's\nconcerns with its hospital payment system. HCFA released the funds\nbased on the State's commitment.\n Problems occurred in the Medicaid Program because of the method by\nwhich Alabama finances its Medicaid Program through so-called\nintergovernmental transfers, a method of counting some funds from State\nand county hospitals as part of its Medicaid share. Alabama now\nreceives about $2.089 billion annually in Medicaid funding. This means\nthat Alabama's contribution should be over $800 million. However, the\nfact remains that Alabama's general fund has been appropriating only\nabout $140 t0 $150 million each year for Medicaid.\n\n This year, two different supplemental appropriations in the amount of\n$10 million brought it up to a level of $169 million. The difference\nbetween this amount and the $800 million match has caused chronic\ndisputes between HCFA and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Being able to\navoid putting up Alabama's Medicaid share in real dollars has been a\nmixed blessing. It has certainly saved Alabama's general fund from\ngoing into serious deficit, due to the rapid increase in overall\nMedicaid expenditures caused in part by additional services mandated by\nCongress. In turn, this has enabled the State to keep taxes low, and to\navoid having to shift funds from other needed services, including\neducation.\n In September 1996, I was delighted when HCFA agreed to a request by\nthe State's congressional delegation to release $94 million in moneys\nthat had been withheld from the Medicaid Program in Alabama. Sooner or\nlater, Alabama is going to be required to find some additional money to\nput into Medicaid. Thus, finding a solution to our most recent Medicaid\ncrisis will not be easy, and I do not believe the answer we found will\nlast very long. Accordingly, we will need to start thinking about what\nwe are going to do with this fix expires.\n Looking to the future, Alabama's Representatives and Senators in\nWashington must examine all Medicaid reform proposals with great care.\nSuch proposals offer States much greater flexibility in designing their\nMedicaid programs. This is clearly positive. If we do a good job, we\ncan offer more cost-effective services to Medicaid recipients. But we\nmust remember that the price of this flexibility may be that the\nFederal Government may at some point stop paying 70 percent of these\nhealth care costs. Alabama taxpayers will then have to pick up 100\npercent of the additional cost, including, for example, the nursing\nhome bills of our rapidly increasing number of elderly citizens. This\nis a big price to pay, and we had better be certain what we are doing.\n In essence, the Federal Government should supply about 70 percent of\nAlabama's Medicaid funds and the State should supply about $700\nmillion. However, in actuality, the Federal Government is supplying\nabout 92 percent of the Medicaid fund, and the State is supplying about\n8 percent. The settlement we just reached would not only release $94\nmillion in 1996, but it would release about $94 million in each of the\nnext 5 years.\n There is a movement in Congress to block grant Medicaid programs.\nHowever, it seems that the Federal Government would not block grant the\nalmost $2.1 billion that it is giving our State. It is likely that the\nFederal Government would only block grant $1.4 billion, which would\nrepresent the 70 to 30 percent ratio. This means the State would have\nto appropriate $170 million.\n Therefore, if you add $1.4 billion in Federal shares, and $170\nmillion in State shares, you will reach a total of\n\n[[Page S12445]]\n\n$1.57 billion. This is $530 million short of what is currently being\nfunded for Alabama's Medicaid. There are no easy answers. There is much\nwork that remains to be done.\n Additionally, in the area of public health education, I sponsored\nlegislation to establish two health facilities at the University of\nAlabama at Birmingham to honor two of Alabama's legendary Senators;\nnamely, the John J. Sparkman Center for International Public Health\nEducation, and the Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. With $5\nmillion in appropriations to the Lister Hill Center, and $4 million in\nfunds appropriated to the John J. Sparkman Center, both centers have\nbeen instrumental in developing research programs that address the\nneeds in public health in the United States, as well as other\ndeveloping countries.\n Initiated in 1980, the John J. Sparkman Center for International\nPublic Health Education [SCIPHE] was provided initial support when\nCongress authorized funding for the establishment of an endowment at\nUAB. The endowment assures long-term support SCIPHE programs and\nactivities which should be conducted primarily onsite in developing\ncountries rather than at UAB or other academic institutions. Thus, the\nprimary mandate of SCIPHE is to promote and provide sustainable\ntraining strategies for public health professional in developing\ncountries.\n The Lister Hill Center [LHC] for Health Policy is also a\ncongressionally endowed center, with a university-wide mission to\nfacilitate the conduct of health policy research, in addition to\ndisseminating the findings of that research beyond the usual academic\nchannels. It also fosters research primarily through the work of its\nscholars in the areas of health care markets and managed care, maternal\nand child health, management in public health organizations, and\nclinical health services research. Scholars with national reputations\nin an area pertinent to health policy are invited monthly to give\nseminars. These seminar series are free of charge and are open to the\nUAB community.\n I was asked by officials at UAB, Auburn Veterinary Medicine School,\nNIH and the National Association of Bio-Medical Research Association to\npass legislation making it a Federal crime to damage or destroy medical\nresearch centers. One of the awards I am most proud of is the\nOutstanding Service to Science Award from the National Association of\nBio-Medical Research for passing such legislation as well as other\ncontributions I made to biomedical research.\n I am proud to have played a small role in the promotion of health\ncare and medical research during my tenure in the Senate. No one can\nargue that this type of reform and research are crucial to the future\nof our Nation and the well-being of our citizens. I am also proud that\nmy home State is playing such an important role in this area.\n While we cannot ignore the need for improving access to quality\nhealth care, we also cannot forget the importance of medical research,\nhealth education, and disease prevention.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12445", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SPACE EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12445", "S12451", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12445", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12445-S12451]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SPACE EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, at the beginning of my first term,\nmy appointment to the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and\nSpace was beneficial, primarily because my home State of Alabama\ncontains the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Alabama is\nhistorically an economically disadvantaged State, and by creating a\nhigh-technology corridor through northern Alabama, we have been able to\nprovide jobs at NASA and the defense and space-related activities in\nthe area. Alabama is now near the top of the list in terms of the\nnumber of high-technology industries.\n But in fairness, it should be understood that a Senator learns to\nhave a dual purpose in what he does. It may sound cynical to say that I\nwas working for my own State and my own electorate, but that was my\njob. I didn't have any particular expertise in the Space Program before\narriving here, but learned about it because it was important to\nAlabama. My predecessor in the Senate, John Sparkman, had also taken an\ninterest in space policy. He was a native of Huntsville. While serving\non this subcommittee, an appreciation of the national, and in fact\nglobal, need to pursue the study and exploration of space and also an\nappreciation of the need to travel in space in order to expand the\nscope of humanity became more clear to me. Joe Moquin and Charles\nGrainger, who represented the Federal Affairs Division of the\nHuntsville Chamber of Commerce, as well as others, were helpful as I\nstudied these exciting issues.\n Recent advances at NASA highlight these needs powerfully. Our voyages\nto Mars, combined with a recent discovery on Earth, have allowed us to\ndeduce that life may have existed on another planet. The Hubble space\ntelescope has given us a better understanding of the universe. The\nspace station, which is now called Alpha, will allow Americans to stay\nin space permanently and conduct manned scientific experiments.\n Many have complained that the space program is too expensive and it\nyields little for the investment. But the space program provides a far\ngreater return than its cost. Satellites have redefined the way we\ncommunicate, and they have reshaped our economy. However, even this\nimmediately practical benefit is outweighed by other, more intangible\ngains. The knowledge we can gain in physics and technology has proved\nitself nearly unlimited. And there are unexpected benefits of the\nprogram, including what we can learn about our own planet, the advances\nwe can make in the field of medical research, and the international\ndiplomacy we will develop with the space station.\n I want to take some time here to summarize my activities relative to\nthe space program, particularly regarding the space station and\nMarshall Space Flight Center. On a personal level, I am proudest of\nbeing the first Senator to call for and push for the development of a\nspace station and also to have been a strong supporter of the shuttle\nprogram. Marshall has been central in both of these projects, and\nmembers of the Alabama congressional delegation have done our best to\nsee that this remains the case.\n Maintaining the independence and viability of NASA has been one of my\ntop priorities. The agency has suffered a number of public relations\nproblems in recent years, beginning with the Challenger explosion,\nfollowed by the failure of the Mars orbiter, and highlighted by the\ninitial embarrassment of the Hubble telescope. But even before these\nsetbacks, the military space budget had grown larger than NASA's. Of\ncourse, I have advocated ABM defenses, including some space-based\nprojects for the future, longer than any other Senator. But NASA's\ncivilian, independent status is necessary for the space program. For\nthis reason, it was necessary to oppose intrusions such as military\ncontrol of the heavy lift launch vehicle, which was proposed after the\nshuttle disaster, and each year, to work as hard as possible to see\nthat NASA received the money it needed to continue to serve as a viable\nagency and to accomplish its specific aims.\n\n Of course, it is NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the\nuniversities and businesses in Alabama who deserve the real credit.\nThey are the minds who develop this astounding technology and reshaped\nthe State. As a Senator, my aim was to do everything possible to\nsupport them consistently.\n In 1979, we worked to ensure that the Commerce Committee approved a\n$185 million supplemental authorization for Marshall to develop the\nspace shuttle. In fact, the overall funding for the center had\nincreased by $100 million since the previous year. We also worked to\npersuade the members of the Appropriations Committee to fund the\nshuttle, and they provided nearly our full request.\n My subcommittee also approved $5 million for the gamma ray\nobservatory project, to be developed at Marshall and launched by the\nspace shuttle, and it authorized a fifth shuttle and a national oceanic\nsatellite system. However, the full committee cut these three programs,\nso we set out to be certain that they would pass in later years.\n In 1980, the Commerce Committee approved an authorization to build a\nfifth shuttle, but the conference committee dropped it in the final\nbill. However, the Congress did pass increases for\n\n[[Page S12446]]\n\nNASA over the administration's request.\n In the committee, my amendment to add $12 million to the NASA budget\nto begin development of the solar electric propulsion system--called\nSEPS--at the Marshall Center was attached. The program was a $300\nmillion program, spread over 5 years. Although it was originally in the\nfiscal 1981 budget, OMB had eliminated it over NASA's objections. This\nreusable system offered the high energy to fly demanding and complex\nmissions that would otherwise require several expensive and expendable\nstages. That year, both Houses passed authorizations for this program.\nBoth Houses also passed authorizations for the gamma ray observatory\nand the national oceanic satellite system. That same year, at a\nsubcommittee hearing in Huntsville, I urged NASA to increase laser\nresearch and development at the Marshall Center. My argument for the\nincrease was that the Soviets were spending at least three to five\ntimes America's $5 million annual budget on laser development. The\ncontinued research and development of laser technology was only one of\nthe goals for the United States in the 1980's, but the potential\nbenefits of laser power in both military and civilian applications\nmandate an accelerated interest by the scientific and industrial\ncommunities.\n This hearing was part of a series conducted largely to investigate\nthe potential of lasers in defense. However, the applications of lasers\nseemed worthy of investigation for civilian purposes. Testimony\nrevealed the possibility that lasers might be used to generate vast\namounts of power. This power might be used in space propulsion systems.\nIn fact, at these hearings, witnesses speculated that lasers might even\nultimately be used to facilitate nuclear fusion.\n That year, we also highlighted international pressures to increase\noverall funding for NASA. In the years since the Moon missions, America\nhad seemed preeminent in space, but the reality was that we had begun\nto fall behind the Russians. Senators John Glenn and Jack Schmitt, both\nformer astronauts, appeared on my television show, the ``Heflin\nReport,'' to discuss the U.S. space program as compared to the Soviets.\nThe United States had launched only 16 times in 1979 contrasted by the\nRussians' 87. In fact, the Russians had launched many more times over\nthe previous 15 years.\n\n In 1981, Columbia flew its first mission, showcasing the Marshall\nSpace Center's work. This next giant step in America's ongoing\nadventure in space would not have been possible without the men and\nwomen in Huntsville who developed the shuttle's engines. Due to their\nsuccesses, we were able to authorize increases to the shuttle program,\nalthough the Congress did not fully fund the program at the\nadministration's request.\n Despite this massive advance, however, critics continued to maintain\nthat the space program was too costly, and supporters worked as best we\ncould to clear up this misconception, such as citing studies conducted\nin the early 1970's which indicated that the program has brought $7 to\n$15 for each dollar spent. Commercial satellite launches had\ncontributed to this return. NASA had also developed technology for the\naircraft industry and the Landsat system, used to explore natural\nresources.\n Notably, through our work in the committee that year, we also secured\nauthorizations for NASA's missions to Jupiter and to Halley's Comet.\nBoth of these NASA missions ultimately proved to be tremendously\nsuccessful.\n In 1982, we were finally able to include funds for a fifth space\nshuttle in the NASA authorization. This authorization represented an\noverall increase, and it included money for the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration Landsat satellite scanning, something we had\nbeen fighting to get for a long time.\n But that year, for the first time, the military's space budget grew\nbeyond NASA's. While I have long supported military initiatives in\nspace, this was seen by some of us as a threat to NASA's independent,\ncivilian status. Although there is a purpose to certain military\nmissions in space, to usurp NASA's role is contrary to the U.S. mission\nin space as it was conceived. In the years to come, especially after\nthe Challenger disaster, this threat would continue.\n In 1983, the construction and deployment of a permanent, manned space\nstation was again urged. A permanent presence in space is the next\nlogical step in human advancement, and research in space has certain\nadvantages not to be found on Earth. The microgravity atmosphere of\nspace allows numerous scientific activities to occur. The growth of\ncrystals and the electrophoresis process can take place far better in\nspace than in the gravity atmosphere of Earth. Several kinds of metals\nwill combine only under the conditions found in space. Medical research\nhas also had many successes in space.\n Dr. Charles Bugg, Dr. Larry DeLucas, and other scientists at the\nUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham were conducting significant\nexperiments in crystallography, but knew nothing about the\ncrystallography activities at Marshall Space Flight Center until I got\nthem together. Since then, they have developed a renowned partnership\nthat will likely lead to treatments and cures for many diseases.\n My strength on the subcommittee increased that year when I became its\nranking member, and we crafted an authorization bill which provided\nmoney for space station design at Marshall. It also increased the\nfunding to NASA generally. The bill provided more money than the\nPresident requested for Marshall's space telescope, its materials\nprocessing, teleoperator maneuvering system, and its space plasma lab\nprograms. Finally, the bill also authorized the construction of a fifth\nspace shuttle, which Reagan had not requested. Of course, this\nauthorization bill was a particularly good one for the future of\nMarshall Center, but it also helped to bring about a more balanced NASA\nprogram.\n\n Earlier in the year, I contacted the President to oppose the sale of\nthe Nation's weather and land satellite system and to oppose\ncommercialization of the National Weather Service because of my concern\nthat such a transfer might hinder the system's efficiency. People in\nmany parts of the country relied on the system for early warning in the\ncase of tornados and other severe storms; farmers relied on the\ninformation to determine their crops, and the scientific community\ndepended largely on the information. Under the proposal, the transfer\nseemed likely to be a single company. Since that company would require,\nas a condition of the sale, a noncompetitive, guaranteed Government\ncontract for many years for the information derived from the\nsatellites, the Government would be establishing a monopoly and\ncreating disincentives for commercialization. The committee was able to\nsecure provisions in the authorization bill to prevent the sale of NASA\nland and weather satellites, unless the sale were specifically approved\nby another law.\n Some of us also opposed the cuts to the National Weather Service\nrecommended by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.\nSpecifically, the NOAA had suggested reducing the number of weather\nstations to one-tenth their existing number. Specialized forecasts\nwould also be eliminated. But the projected savings were minimal; the\ncost to create a centralized station would outweigh the savings over\nmany years.\n There was another project undertaken that year, which applied\nperipherally to the space program. This was the University Research\nCapacity Restoration Act which Senator Danforth and I introduced to\nbring universities and industries together in the creation of research\nparks. We introduced the bill after holding two hearings in Birmingham\non the measure.\n University research is among the most valuable in the country, yet\nlack of funding has limited it to obsolete equipment. With this bill,\nwe hoped to use the Government as a catalyst to create research parks\nthat combine industry and university resources. We hoped that we might\nthereby increase the quality of research at such institutions as the\nUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB], the University of South\nAlabama in Mobile, Auburn, Tuskegee, and Alabama A&M. Metallurgy and\nspace-based materials processing were among the chief projects we had\nin mind.\n In 1984, the President supported the development of a permanent space\nstation in his State of the Union Address.\n\n[[Page S12447]]\n\nI was absolutely delighted that he gave the station such strong\nsupport; without his help, this project might have died early on.\n Energized by the President's support, I visited the Marshall Center\nin Huntsville, which would handle most of the materials processing for\nNASA's station numerous times, and each time was greatly encouraged. My\ncommittee was able to endure that the NASA authorization included funds\nfor research and development of the manned space station. This\nauthorization also created a National Commission on Space, a Mars\nmission, and a satellite to study the Earth's upper atmosphere.\nHowever, many of us were disappointed that the Congress approved the\nsale of Landsat satellites.\n\n Other provisions of the authorization included language to create a\nNational Commission on Space to establish a plan for the civilian space\nprogram. There was some concern over the Defense Department's intrusion\non the space program, so we limited its membership on the board to a\nsingle nonvoting seat. The purpose of the commission was to study long-\nrange goals and schedules for the program.\n The commercialization of space also became a major initiative in\nthese years. In 1984, Congress passed a law to encourage commercial\nspace launches. It required licensing, to be provided by the Department\nof Transportation, and we set about to consider further ways of\nexpanding private launches.\n My bill to improve university research, the University Research\nCapacity Restoration Act, became law in 1984. The new law was designed\nto increase support for the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense,\nEnergy, and Agriculture Departments by combining university and private\nindustrial research efforts.\n In 1985, when the Commerce Committee passed its NASA authorization,\nNASA's budget suffered cuts, but under this bill, Marshall Space Flight\nCenter was not affected. It included strong support for four major\nMarshall programs: the space station, the materials processing program,\nthe orbital maneuvering vehicle [OMV], and the aeronautical research\nand technology program.\n Specifically, the bill funded the space station with a specific\nrequirement that it embrace only peaceful ends. The committee had\noriginally considered a lower level for the space station than the $200\nmillion included in the bill, but we were able to bring that figure up.\nI worked especially hard to see that Marshall got a sizable portion of\nthe space station work. Marshall was then designated to do 40 percent\nof the work, the most of any center. Robert Hager, project manager of\nBoeing, and I developed a close working relationship that proved very\neffective over the years.\n This bill also fully funded the materials processing program at\nMarshall, a program with which several universities in my State were\nintimately involved. As a result of experiments conducted on the\nshuttle by McDonnell Douglas and Johnson and Johnson, we were hopeful\nthat some major medical breakthroughs would materialize as a result of\nNASA-private sector materials processing research.\n At one point, the OMV was deleted from the bill, but we were\nsuccessful in persuading the committee to go forward with the\ndevelopment of this vehicle. Marshall's other chief project, the\naeronautical research and technology program, also came out well.\nAgain, this type of initiative was among NASA's chief money-making\nsources.\n Further, the authorization bill provided for the delivery of the\nfourth shuttle--Atlantis--but Congress did not fund the fifth. We also\nauthorized the Galileo mission to Jupiter, the Ulysses mission to the\nSun, and the Hubble telescope, which has proved itself a tremendous\nsuccess despite setbacks here and there.\n My bill to remove tax code barriers to the commercialization of space\nwas introduced that year along with the sponsorship of the\nsubcommittee's chairman, Senator Gorton. The bill would have extended\nincentives for investment and research and development, and accelerated\ndepreciation schedules. Many U.S. laws were written before the\ncommercial uses of space were ever envisioned, but commercialization of\nspace could be improved with the impetus of Government cooperation. To\nthis end, we have maintained contact with officials from the Auburn\nUniversity School of Engineering concerning corporations who might be\ninterested in space-based materials processing. We have an opportunity\nto combine the expertise of Marshall Space Flight Center with\nuniversity experts and transfer this potential to the private sector.\nThis idea is one way to help make this possible and hopefully it will\nsome day be enacted.\n\n I also cosponsored a concurrent resolution to express the sense of\nthe Congress that the Nation must improve university research,\nrestating the ideas behind the University Research Capacity Restoration\nAct which had my cosponsorship in 1983. The 1983 bill increased support\nfor the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense, Energy, and Agriculture\nDepartments. This resolution did not fund these entities, but it\nrestated the congressional commitment to do so. We depend on our\npreeminence in science to enable us to advance technology and maintain\nour economic and national security.\n On January 28, 1986, the Challenger disaster brought a whole host of\nproblems to the space program and to those of us who supported it. The\npublic was horrified, and the military began to increase its\nintervention in space. Spacelab, a program to add modules to the space\nshuttle for experiments in orbit, died, and the space station suffered\ncuts; the Hubble telescope was also delayed until 1988. The Defense\nDepartment began building its own launch vehicles for satellites, and\nthe military's space budget grew to two-thirds the total U.S. space\nbudget. Further, President Reagan pocket-vetoed the NASA authorization\nwhich included money for the replacement of the Challenger shuttle,\nchiefly because of provisions creating a National Aeronautics and Space\nCouncil to advise the President on space and military issues. However,\nthe Congress did appropriate money for the new shuttle in the omnibus\nappropriations bill.\n Morale was at a terribly low level at Marshall Space Flight Center.\nTheir spirit had been devastated by the Challenger explosion. I came\nout publicly at critical times praising the excellent work that had\noccurred at Marshall over the years and pointed out that while the\nexplosion was horrible, the fault could be placed at many doors.\nHopefully, my remarks boosted morale at Marshall. We worked behind the\nscenes to get Senator Robert Dole to visit Marshall and speak words of\nencouragement and support for the Huntsville-based space flight center.\nHis words helped restore the morale and reputation of Marshall.\n At the end of 1986, then-NASA Administrator Fletcher announced that\nwork assignments on the space station had been finalized, and Marshall\nSpace Flight Center was to maintain roughly 40 percent of the space\nstation design and construction. It would also have responsibility for\nthe living and working quarters of the spacecraft. The Marshall Center\nwould provide technical direction for the propulsion system, conduct\nthe adaptation of the planned international module, and develop and\nconstruct the environmental and pressure systems of the station, among\nother things.\n That year, I contacted President Reagan and Energy Secretary\nHerrington to urge construction of the superconducting supercollider in\nAlabama. Researchers at UAH had developed a compound that loses all\nresistance to electricity at a higher temperature than had been\npreviously possible. With the expertise demonstrated by this and other\nbreakthroughs in this scientific area and the outstanding support\nprovided by the University of Alabama at Huntsville and similar\noutstanding research at Auburn University, the State of Alabama has\nshown that it is a logical location for projects like the\nsupercollider. Unfortunately, Alabama was not chosen, and the project\nultimately was discontinued.\n\n In 1987, I had to relinquish my seat on the science subcommittee in\norder to stay on the Agriculture Committee. Given the importance of the\nspace program to my constituents, it was a great sacrifice, but farming\nwas also so important to Alabama and therefore felt it wise to remain\non that committee. In any case, I did my best to stay as involved with\nspace issues as possible.\n\n[[Page S12448]]\n\n In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion, I testified before the\nsubcommittee to oppose Air Force administration of the proposed heavy\nlift launch vehicle. The Defense Department had requested a\nsupplemental appropriation of $250 million for the project. Assigning\nthe project to the Air Force with only minimal NASA input would have\nbeen a backward way to approach the development of this vehicle. All\nthe more so since the Air Force planned to start anew, without\nincorporating any of the lessons of the shuttle. NASA would benefit\ngreatly from the vehicle's use, and its greater capacity would make up\nfor lost time in the shuttle program in the deployment of the space\nstation and other projects.\n I successfully urged the inclusion of language in the supplemental\nappropriations bill to ensure that NASA played a more significant part\nin the development of the heavy launch vehicle. Marshall Space Center's\nexpertise in propulsion and other aspects of design could serve as an\nexcellent resource in the development of a heavy lift rocketship. And\nsuch a vehicle might one day facilitate a trip to Mars--and beyond.\n Notably, disputes over military use of the space station made its\npassage difficult that year. Congress ultimately allowed some military\nresearch. And Alabama came out well through the debate. At the end of\nthe year, NASA awarded Boeing, with facilities in the State, the\ncontract to perform Marshall Space Flight Center's work on the station.\nThe project had my full support, since, among other things, it would\nbring over 6,000 jobs to Alabama. It was a significant leap forward for\nthe space program, and it only solidified my efforts to ensure that the\nspace station received primary consideration.\n Another boon for Alabama came that year when NASA selected Auburn\nUniversity as host to its Center for the Commercial Development of\nSpace Power. The new center would research the generation, storage,\nconditioning and distribution of electrical power in space. This was\nthe kind of project desperately needed in my State. This center, and\nprojects like it, could become the incubator for a new industry on the\ncutting edge of space technology. Until now the power requirements of\nour space ventures have been low, but future space projects will make\nmuch higher power demands. With these types of initiatives, we will\nbegin the development of a cadre of engineers and physicists who will\nprovide the crucial talent pool needed for the space power program for\nyears to come. Hopefully, much of this work will be done in Alabama.\n Meanwhile, my efforts to bring the supercollider to my State\ncontinued, especially through an amendment to the supplemental\nappropriations bill to decide location of the supercollider solely on\ntechnical merit. The Energy Department had just announced that it would\nconsider donations of money and land. The Senate approved this\namendment, but of course, it still did not work out as hoped.\n In 1988, during the Presidential campaign, some of NASA's Democratic\nsupporters were disappointed that our party's candidate did not show\nany particular support for the space program, nor the space station. I\ntalked several times with Governor Dukakis asking for a revised stand\non the issue. At a Huntsville campaign stop, he recited his full\nsupport for the space program and space station. We were able in\nCongress to pass funding at the full level of President Reagan's\nrequest.\n That same year, I became a strong supporter of the Advanced Solid\nRocket Motor project, which came about after the failings of the\nshuttle boosters and their O-rings became known, and talked to each of\nthe Members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation asking for their\nfull support of this ASRM Project for NASA and to support the\nappropriation process in Congress. Although there had been partisanship\nand divisiveness concerning the location of the rocket plant, the\nAlabama Congressional Delegation needed to pull together as a team and\npresent a solid and united effort for this project and Alabama jobs.\n In 1989, we protested the budget resolution's funding level for the\nspace station. Knowing it would be a very tough budget year for the\nspace station, we enlisted the support of Senators Sasser and Domenici\nof the Budget Committee. But when the Senate passed its VA-HUD\nappropriations for fiscal year 1990, the low funding level for NASA was\ncriticized by me and others. While the bill provided for a 15-percent\nincrease for the space program, that was only the bare minimum and it\nfell short of what was needed to maintain world leadership in space\nresearch, technology, and exploration. Most notably, the space station\nwas funded at $200 million less than NASA's request. While fighting\nhard for full funding for the space station, I was nonetheless hopeful\nthat the funding level would provide enough for the program to move\nforward without any serious program modifications, rescoping, or\nschedule delays.\n During a speech I delivered on the Senate floor on the 20th\nanniversary of the Moon landing, my support for the station was again\nemphasized. We cannot just leave our advances at that. We need to\nreturn to the Moon and travel to Mars. The President agreed that the\nspace station was the first step to these ends, and a space summit with\nMembers of Congress was suggested.\n After much debate on the advanced solid rocket motor plant, we\nfinally secured funding through the conference through use of an\nunusual procedural tactic. The House had not included funding, but we\nmade sure the Senate included money so that there could be an increase\nduring conference. Congressmen Whitten and Bevill were extremely\nhelpful in this effort. Although some questioned this strategy, we\nadhered to the rules completely. This bargaining chip worked, and we\npushed the funding through successfully.\n In 1989, the benefits of the Space Grant College and Fellowship Act\nwere realized in my home State. Under its provisions, NASA selected\nseveral Alabama Universities to comprise a consortium for the new\nNational Space Grant College and Fellowship program; these schools\nincluded UAH, UAB, Alabama A&M, the University of Alabama, and Auburn.\n As a side note, NASA selected two Alabama women to fly on shuttle\nmissions that year. These women were Mae C. Jemison, M.D. and N. Jan\nDavis, Ph.D. Dr. Jemison was the first African American woman selected\nfor space flight. Without question, Alabama played an important role in\nthe development and implementation of the space shuttle program. I took\nsome pride in knowing that two people from my home State could take\nadvantage of those efforts and experience the accomplishments of their\nfellow Alabamians first-hand.\n In 1990, NASA suffered cuts after the Hubble telescope debacle, and\nit saw the death of National Space Council's long-term proposals for\nlunar and Mars missions. The problems of the telescope had brought very\nhard times on the agency, and the Congress needed to combat an\nincreasing negativity in the press and among the public.\n To work out these problems, the President held the space summit\nsuggested the year before at the White House. It brought together the\nPresident, the Vice President, NASA officials, and other Members of\nCongress, including myself. Elected officials must continue to hold\nthese kinds of summits in the future, because talks regarding the space\nstation need to be centralized and should focus on the goals of\nacquiring and maintaining full funding and placing the space station in\norbit.\n During that same year, the Augustine Advisory Committee on the Future\nof the U.S. Space Program issued its report. I was quite pleased with\nits recommendations, including its advocacy of a heavy lift launch\nvehicle. At the time, the Congress and the committee were still waiting\nfor a redesign of the space station, which had been dubbed ``Freedom.''\nThe HLLV seemed like it might be a good device for deployment of the\nstation.\n By that time, we had won the battle for the ASRM plant, which was to\nbe located at Yellow Creek in Michigan, just across the border from\nAlabama. And that year, the Marshall Center awarded a $550 million\ncontract to Lockheed for the design and construction of the Advanced\nSolid Rocket Motor. Lockheed arranged to subcontract the work to RUST\nInternational of Birmingham. It was going to be a great boon to Alabama\nas well\n\n[[Page S12449]]\n\nas the space program; in the following years, we did our best to\ncontinue this project.\n In 1991, President Bush's fiscal 1992 budget request for NASA\nreceived my support. It was a 13-percent overall increase to fund the\nspace station, NASA's share of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle program,\nand to increase space science research. The budget allowed the\npropulsion element for the space shuttle program at Marshall Space\nFlight Center in Huntsville to continue without interruption. And\ncompletion of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor plant in Yellow Creek was\nalso included.\n But, of course, the space station met opposition again. To push the\nproject, I met with the Vice President, administration officials, and\nother Members of Congress to discuss the future of the space station\nafter its redesign, and we all came out of this meeting with a feeling\nthat we were going to join forces. Vice President Quayle assured us\nthat the President had assigned a high priority to the station.\n There was an attempt to cut the program in the Senate, but it was\nopposed on the floor. The Senate voted to keep the funding in the bill.\nThe station's toughest battle that year was in the House of\nRepresentatives. Congressmen Bud Cramer and Tom Bevill did great work\nin restoring funding after the House appropriations subcommittee had\ncut funding for the program from its bill. Together, we sought to\nreturn NASA to a reasonable and balanced profile of programs and to\nmake sure that America did not abandon the 100,000 scientists,\nengineers, and support staff associated with NASA and its contractors\nwho work on the development of the space station programs. We also\nsought to save the more than 3,000 jobs in Huntsville.\n We protected other local jobs as well. The ASRM plant received full\nfunding. And other programs which were funded were the Marshall\nCenter's Advanced X ray Astrophysics Facility, and the National Launch\nSystem/Space Transportation Main Engine program. The Earth Observing\nSystems program also faired well.\n In October, the President signed a bill to facilitate the\nconstruction of Space Station Freedom. Soon afterward, there was a\nmeeting with a group of astronauts to discuss the station's future and\ntalked with the astronauts about Mission to Planet Earth, a program to\nstudy the Earth's atmosphere with satellites.\n As the whole debate on funding went on, I spoke about how much\nAlabama's economy had grown since the space program began there in the\n1950's. Its role in the State's future was crucial. The growth began\nwith the Army's development of the Redstone and Jupiter missile systems\nin response to Sputnik, and continued when Milton Cummings and Joe\nMoquin established the Cummings Research Park. Last, the Army Missile\nCommand, the Redstone Arsenal, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and\nthe Strategic Defense Command had great potential to continue the\nexpansion.\n In 1992, another amendment to eliminate the space station came before\nthe Senate. The Senators who supported this amendment had deliberately\ninflated the cost of the station, and they perpetuated the myths of the\nstation's extravagance. Again, the Senate failed to approve the\namendment.\n That year, the Senate also approved a resolution to place two full-\nscale models of the space station at the Capitol from June 2 through 4,\n1992. The fight to fund the space station continued to be impassioned\neach year. If my colleagues had an opportunity to see first-hand the\nincredible potential the space station offers, they would understand\nhow important continued funding is to the program. The NASA exhibit\nincluded two modules, the habitation and laboratory units, each housed\nin a tractor-trailer. I toured the exhibit myself with NASA\nAdministrator Goldin and a visiting boy scout troop from Alabama.\n I used a floor speech commemorating the quincentenary of Columbus'\nvoyage to the Americas to again illustrate the importance of the Space\nProgram. When hearing some of my colleagues rail against the space\nstation and other projects designed to propel us into the future, one\ncannot help but wonder what they would have said had they been around\nin 1492. Some of the most important human advances, like Columbus'\nvoyage and many breakthroughs in medicine, had been accidental. We may\nnot always know exactly what is out there, but we know we must continue\nto explore in order to discover. Because of believing this so strongly,\nI met with the crew of Endeavor to discuss the future of the Space\nProgram. Among these astronauts was Kathryn Thornton of Alabama.\n Another proposal which was short-sighted was the President's decision\nto eliminate the advanced solid rocket motor plant from his budget\nrequest. Its supporters could not understand the rationale behind\ncancellation, since this system would have been much more reliable than\nprevious boosters. In a letter to Senator Mikulski, the chair of the\nappropriations subcommittee, I asserted that it would cost more to\ncancel the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Program than to complete it.\nThat fact, combined with its increased safety and efficiency, certainly\njustified the ASRM in my own mind, and, fortunately, she agreed.\n But this was not enough. We had to use the same strategy we used in\n1989. The House had voted to kill the ASRM plant at the request of the\nDirector of OMB. So, I spent an entire day convincing the Senate\nAppropriations Committee to include some funding to the program.\nRepresentative Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, chairman of the House\ncommittee, used this as a starting point to provide full funding in the\nconference. We also convinced Al Gore to voice support for the ASRM in\nspeeches as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate.\n The final appropriations bill, which went to the President, included\na much higher level of funding than appeared in the first Senate\nappropriations bill for ASRM, $2.1 billion for the space station, and\n$167 million for Marshall's AXAF Program, which was also in danger of\nelimination entirely.\n In 1992, my bill to endorse the U.S. Space Camp, the U.S. Space\nAcademy, and Aviation Challenge programs was introduced. Our goal in\nCongress must be to support educational programs and to tear down any\nbarriers that would prevent government agencies from working in\nconjunction with private enterprise dedicated to teaching our youth.\n Shortly after taking the oath of office as President, Bill Clinton\nbegan a program of downsizing the Government. The enemies of NASA went\nto work at OMB, and in the original recommendations from OMB, the space\nstation was to be canceled. Many of the enemies of the space station in\nCongress were urging President Clinton to cancel the space station.\n Congress recessed around the holiday celebrations of the birthdays of\nPresidents Washington and Lincoln in February 1993. I had scheduled a\nreturn to Alabama to visit numerous places in the State with a series\nof town meetings. Upon learning that President Clinton was seriously\nconsidering canceling the space station, my entire recess schedule was\nput on hold in order to stay in Washington to do everything possible to\nsee that the space station survived in the President's budget. We\nworked with representatives of Boeing, McDonell Douglas, and others\ninvolved to stop the cancellation. For more than a week, we rallied\nforces to support the space station. On several occasions, I personally\ndiscussed the merits of the program with our President and Vice\nPresident.\n We got Texas Governor Ann Richards to become actively involved in our\nefforts. There were numerous people working night and day to do\neverything they could to save the space station, and I hesitate to list\nall of them because there were so many that might be left out. But,\nChris Hansen of Boeing and Amy Bondurant, an attorney representing\nMcDonnell Douglas, were extremely helpful in this effort. Jyles Machen,\nour loan from Marshall, served as a congressional fellow in my office\nfor 2 years, and his expertise was invaluable to me on the space\nstation and to all issues and projects relating to NASA.\n Vice President Albert Gore had always been a supporter of the Space\nProgram, and he was convinced to go all out to preserve it. Greg Simon,\na highly intelligent and knowledgeable member of Vice President Gore's\nstaff, was especially helpful in this battle.\n\n[[Page S12450]]\n\nDuring this time, we kept in constant contact with the officials at\nMarshall Space Flight Center as well. The team that worked to save the\nstation at that time all cooperated and performed exceptional work.\nWhen the President's budget was finally submitted, he called for the\nfull funding that NASA requested for the space station.\n\n In 1993, the ASRM program died after the House had voted it down for\nthe fifth time, even though the new Vice President and other officials\nwere strong supporters. The House votes during 1993 were so\noverwhelmingly negative that it became clear that the best to be hoped\nfor was a reassignment to keep Yellow Creek employed in some other\nactivity. My chief concern by this point was saving Alabama jobs. The\nplant was nearly completed, and it had several possible uses, so the\nNASA administrator came to my office to discuss its future.\n Later that year, NASA and the Thiokol Corporation announced that\ncompany would transfer its rocket nozzle section from Utah to Yellow\nCreek. Eight hundred people would start work there. The transfer made a\nlot of sense, since Marshall would be the chief buyer, and of course we\nwanted to see the jobs there.\n But there were other disappointments that year, including, most\nnotably, the fact that Marshall was not chosen to be the lead center\nfor the space station program. However, Boeing, also located in\nnorthern Alabama, would serve as a major contractor. Of course,\nMarshall would have been an excellent choice to host the project,\nespecially because of the quality work the management and employees\nthere had done on the program. They had done it without any of the\nlarge cost overruns that plagued other centers working on the space\nstation project.\n But in our Yellow Creek meeting with the NASA administrator, he\nassured Congressman Cramer and me that any rumors Marshall would be\nclose were ``poppycock,'' and his assurances seemed pretty solid. The\nfinal appropriations bill included more than $2.1 billion for the space\nstation. This funding level included vital elements such as the payload\nutilization operations conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center. And\nNASA had selected the Marshall Center to build the Space Station\nFurnace Facility, a project which would employ 160 people.\n That year's appropriations bill had other advantages for Alabama,\ntoo. It included millions for the Centers for the Commercial\nDevelopment of Space. These centers were comprised of a consortium of\nuniversities, including UAB, UAH, and Auburn. NASA had recently\nconducted a peer review of these centers and scored Alabama's three\ncenters very well. By the recommendations of this same report, 6 of the\n17 centers were scheduled for closure, but not ours.\n In 1994, the dramatic and successful repair of the Hubble Telescope\nhelped NASA to restore some of its own credibility with the public.\nAnother tremendous benefit was the report issued by the Advisory\nCommittee on the Redesign of the Space Station, an independent group of\nacademic, scientific, and business leaders, headed by MIT President\nCharles Vest. This committee had reversed its initial, negative view on\nthe space station printed in 1993. This time, Chairman Vest clearly\nstated that the program had progressed well beyond his expectations. It\nwas not an endorsement to be taken lightly and it further emphasized\nthe need for budgetary stability and a firm national commitment for the\nInternational Space Station.\n However, NASA still had its vocal opponents. For instance, CBO\npublished a report stating that NASA could save half of its money by\nhalving its workload. We were able to point out many errors in the\nreport. This sort of haphazard approach was reflected in the budget\nallocation handed to the VA-HUD subcommittee, which cut $700 million\nfrom NASA's budget. I was very concerned by the proposed cuts, and\nbegan working to ensure that the space station and other programs were\nprotected.\n 1994 saw yet another Senate amendment to cut the space station. By\nthat time, the program had already been assigned a district management\nstructure with clear lines of responsibility and authority. One center\nhad been designated as a host center to facilitate program\nadministration, and one contractor was selected as the prime, with all\nothers working as subs. Transition to the previous year's redesign and\nthis new management structure was complete. The new management\nstructure included a concept widely embraced within the private sector,\na tenet of total quality management known as the integrated product\nteam. These teams are a flexible management tool designed to bring\ntogether experts from several fields to work individual issues, solve\nproblems, improve communications, and speed decision making. Essential\ndesign and review stages were almost completed.\n Compared to the Freedom design, the International Space Station had\nnearly twice the power, almost double the pressurized volume, and twice\nthe number of laboratory modules. The station was designed to orbit at\na higher inclination, broadening the band of the Earth's surface and\natmosphere visible to the station. The crew size has been increased\nfrom 4 to 6 fulltime crew members. The amount of extra-vehicular\nactivity, or ``spacewalks'' required to construct the station has been\ndrastically reduced, thereby reducing program risk. Furthermore, the\ninternational partners in the project had completed their essential\ndesign and review stages.\n\n It made no sense to cut the program, and the Senate knew it. In the\nsubsequent vote, 64 members voted for the space station, a remarkable\nvictory. We did a not of preparatory work for the vote and all of our\nefforts paid off and everything turned out well. Those of us who were\nproponents of the space station contacted every Senator numerous times\nin advance of the vote. I was pleased to serve as chairman of the vote\nround-up group as on several occasions before and since. We tried to\nget as many votes as possible so we could put this continual fight for\nspace station funding behind us. Our position was greatly strengthened\nby the House of Representatives, which also gave a strong show of\nsupport for the space station that year.\n Senators Milkulski and Gramm of the Appropriations Committee did\noutstanding work on the NASA budget, which reflected remarkable support\nfor the Space Station and the space science programs. It increased\nNASA's funding over the President's request, and fully funded the space\nstation.\n That year, the Senate also passed an amendment to appropriate $40\nmillion for the continuation of the commercial mid-deck augmentation\nmodule for the space shuttle--widely known as ``Space Hab.'' The\namendment became part of the emergency supplement bill to aid victims\nof the earthquake. The primary contractor for the project was McDonnell\nDouglas, headquartered in Huntsville, which would employ 150 people to\nfinish the quasi commercial venture. The Space Hab program has been in\nserious danger due to budget cuts, but the appropriation allow it to\ncontinue. It was a crucial project in the commercialization of space.\n We also continued our efforts to maintain Yellow Creek that year,\npursuing the rocket-nozzle factory at the plant and other options. In a\nmeeting with Navy Secretary Dalton, I proposed conversion of NASA's\nYellow Creek facility into a site for Navy demilitarization of surplus\nstrategic and tactical rocket motors. NASA's Advanced Rocket Motor\nDirector had given me the idea in another meeting. The Navy would\nreceive a flexible facility to enable the sound disposal of excess\nrocket motors; the transfer would create a means to investigate energy\nproduction and reusable chemicals, and jobs would be saved.\n Last year, there were misguided efforts to cut the NASA budget\nsignificantly. The Republicans advocated huge cuts, and the President\nand NASA Administrator claimed they had to propose cuts, too. The\nExecutive Branch told me that some of the funding reductions would\noccur after the construction of the space station was completed.\nStreamlining the shuttle program was another cost-savings plan.\n In a meeting in May, the NASA Administrator announced that both the\nSenate and the House versions of the Republican budget proposals would\ncause severe cuts to the agency's personnel. To pay for the tax cut\ncontained in the House of Representatives budget plan, he told me NASA\nwould be forced to cut 45,000 civil service and\n\n[[Page S12451]]\n\ncontractor jobs at NASA by the year 2000. The House proposal was worse,\nand it required large cuts by this year. Of course, the President\nvetoed this budget, but the agency is still in trouble.\n Most disturbing, however, was the House Republicans' announcement\nthat they would close Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center by 1998\nalong with other NASA facilities in Maryland and Virginia. In a meeting\nwith NASA Administrator Goldin, he assured me he would fight to\nmaintain all three center the House had targeted: Marshall, Goddard,\nand Langley. We had already done a lot of work in the Senate, and\nSenator Shelby and I had contacted key leaders in the Senate and\nreceived their commitments to keep Marshall and the other centers open.\n In September 1996, we fought against yet another Senate amendment to\ncut funding for the space station. Tens of thousands of pounds of\nequipment had already been constructed, and the shuttle had flown its\nfirst station related mission the year before. Although the Senate\nvoted the amendment down, it is unfortunate that the biggest challenge\nthe station program faces appears to be the Congress of the United\nStates, specifically a small handful of members who continue to offer\nlegislation aimed at terminating the station program. Since the\ninception of the program, votes have been held over 18 times on the\nstation. We must continue to reject these attempts and continue our\nsupport of the Space Station program. We owe this to the future of the\ncitizens of the United States and to all the people of Earth.\n Unfortuantely, the Premiere Nozzle Center at Yellow Creek came to an\nend last year. Mississippi state officials seem to have made a deal\nwith NASA to gain title to the property.\n The Yellow Creek saga began when TVA terminated a 30-percent-complete\nnuclear reactor. Then came the rash cancellation of the ASRM plant,\nwhich was designed to prevent future space shuttle disasters like the\nChallenger incident in 1986. Last, we were faced with the sell-out of\nthe nozzle center, a project which first was announced just 18 months\nbeforehand.\n In reviewing its history, it is hard to dismiss the theory that the\nuse of Yellow Creek as a site for ASRM and as a Nozzle Center was being\nsabotaged from the beginning after the Revised Solid Rocket Motor was\ncompleted. Given its history, hopefully something productive can occur\nat Yellow Creek; otherwise it will stand as a monument to Government\nineptitude an incompetence, as well as a destructive conspiracy.\n In my last year as a Senator, NASA and the space station have,\nthankfully, enjoyed a banner year. Congress has approved a NASA budget\nof $14.37 billion, which includes $2.1 billion for the International\nSpace Station. Space Lab received $102.3 million, which is 10 million\nover the original request. In April, NASA safely concluded the second\nlongest shuttle mission. The space station was reconfigured within\ncongressional budget limits and considerable improvements were made in\nmanagement, engineering and budgeting the program. These changes led to\na resounding endorsement from the Vest Committee.\n It is rewarding to those of use who have worked long and hard in\nsupport of this important international scientific collaboration that\nthe groundswell of public and congressional support is growing\nstronger. Credit for this success belongs to the team of personnel--\nscientists, engineers, contractors, universities and government\nagencies--who have worked tirelessly to make this program a viable path\nto the future.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12451", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND COURT REFORM", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12451", "S12455", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1198\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2807\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12451", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12451-S12455]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND COURT REFORM\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as the end of the 104th Congress\nwas drawing to a close, I began making a series of speeches summarizing\nmy activities and legislative efforts relating to some of the major\npolicy issue areas facing our Nation. My purpose was to reflect upon\nand generally summarize my three terms in the Senate, pointing out\nprogress, key accomplishments, disappointments, and suggestions for the\nfuture. So far, I have focused on the areas of civil rights and\nnational defense and foreign policy. Here, I will devote some attention\nto my role as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.\n Much of my statement on civil rights issues focused on activities\nwithin the Judiciary Committee, since these issues often arise in the\ncontext of court cases and nominations. I will reiterate some of that\nmaterial here, but will focus more on court reform and the\nadministration of justice, issues which were not discussed at length in\nthat statement on civil rights.\n While serving as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, my\nprimary goal was to modernize the State's system of justice. The\nbacklog of cases when I came into office was staggering, so we set out\nimmediately to pass reform of the judicial article, which is the part\nof the State constitution outlining the State judiciary. During my\nterm, we were successful in getting the people to adopt a new article\nto the State's constitution in the form of a constitutional amendment\nwhich was known as the new judicial article and in getting the State\nlegislature to pass a judicial article implementation bill, which some\nsay became a model for the Nation. I was extremely proud of our efforts\nand of the many hundreds of people who came together to make it happen.\nI saw first-hand that State courts can be made more efficient and\ncitizens' access to the courts increased.\n Upon arriving in the Senate, I quickly saw that much of the reform we\naccomplished at the State level was needed at the Federal level. Much\nof my work on the Judiciary Committee has focused on bringing these\nreforms to the Federal court system. As a member, chairman, and ranking\nmember of the subcommittee overseeing the courts and judicial\nadministration, I have had the opportunity to seek many much-needed\nimprovements in the administration of justice. Since judicial\nadministration is so important to access to the judicial system, it is\nmy firm belief that efficient administration is a necessary component\nof swift and sure justice for all those who seek it.\n Since time and space will not permit me to be as comprehensive in\nsummarizing these various issues as I would like, I ask unanimous\nconsent that a summary listing of legislation I have introduced,\ncosponsored, or directly shaped in some way be included in the\nCongressional Record after my remarks. However, I would like to\nsummarize some of the highlights in these areas.\n One of the major efforts was in the area of bankruptcy reform.\nPassage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 brought to a close nearly\n5 years of work in this area. Over these several years, we were able to\nproduce the first major substantive change in the Bankruptcy Code since\n1984. We successfully streamlined and updated the code.\n The need for a major reform of the code became apparent with the\nrecord increases in bankruptcy filings the courts had been\nexperiencing. There was a need for changes in the code which recognized\nthe changes in the economy and different types of financial arrangement\nfaced by consumers and businesses.\n Our act addressed virtually all aspects of bankruptcy, including\nprovisions which made significant and important changes to the\nbankruptcy process in our Federal courts. Also included were provisions\nwhich streamlined the process for the individual consumer debtor\nthrough the encouragement of the use of chapter 13 repayment bankruptcy\nprovisions. The commercial bankruptcy process and procedure was also\naddressed. I am particularly proud that a Bankruptcy Review Commission\nwas set up to review and study the laws and process related to\nbankruptcy filings. Overall, these reforms have led to a more effective\nand workable process.\n In the 96th Congress, I introduced a bill to divide the Fifth Circuit\nCourt of Appeals into two courts. Its main purpose was to promote\njudicial efficiency. Individual judges in the fifth circuit were\nseverely burdened by an excessively large caseload. Furthermore, the\nentire court had accrued the largest en blanc caseload in U.S. judicial\nhistory. The measure splitting the circuit and creating the 11th\nCircuit Court of Appeals was signed into law in October 1980.\n\n In the 97th Congress, I was a cosponsor of the Omnibus Victims\nProtection\n\n[[Page S12452]]\n\nAct of 1982, which provided additional protection and assistance to\nvictims and witnesses in Federal cases. I was also proud to have been a\nmoving force in the establishment of a State Justice institute in 1984\nduring the 98th Congress, and in the passage of an act amending title\n18 of the United States Code to ban the production and use of\nadvertisements for child pornography or solicitations for child\npornography. This became law in November 1986, at the end of the 99th\nCongress.\n I have always been firmly committed to measures which ensure the free\nand open exercise of religion. In 1988, during the 100th Congress, an\nact to impose criminal penalties and to provide a civil action for\ndamage to religious property and for injury to persons in the free\nexercise of religious beliefs was passed by Congress and signed into\nlaw. Later, in the 103d Congress, my subcommittee held hearings on\nproposed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] guidelines\nwhich many felt would have adversely affected Federal workers' rights\nto express their religious beliefs in the workplace. Ultimately, we\nwere successful in preventing these guidelines from taking effect. This\nyear, in the wake of the rash of church burnings in the South, I\nstrongly supported the legislation to increase penalties for those\nconvicted of destroying houses of worship through arson.\n During the 101st Congress, I was extremely proud of being a cosponsor\nof a comprehensive act containing three major parts. One was the Civil\nJustice Reform Act, which required selected U.S. courts to implement\nexpense and delay reduction plans. A second part was the Federal\njudgeships Act, which created 85 new judgeships, thereby streamlining\nefficiency. The third major part of this act was the Federal Courts\nStudy Committee Implementation Act, which put into place a number of\nthe committee's recommendations. The act, which became Public Law 101-\n650 on December 1, 1990, also contained provisions dealing with\ntelevision violence, computer software rental, judicial discipline, and\nthe rights of visual artists.\n One of the proudest achievements of my career occurred during the\n102nd Congress, with the passage of my bill to name a Federal building\nin Montgomery, AL, after Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Judge Johnson, one\nof the greatest jurists to have ever served on the Federal bench, did\nso much to promote racial progress in Alabama and the rest of the South\nthat I could think of no more fitting tribute to honor his work and\nservice. It became law on March 20, 1992. A new Federal courthouse was\nbuilt in Birmingham and later named the Hugo Black Courthouse and the\nMontgomery courthouse is now being expanded.\n That same year, the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992 was\nsigned into law (P.L. 102-572, October 29, 1992). This law encompassed\nfour bills I sponsored: the Federal Courts Study Committee\nImplementation Act, the Judicial Survivors' Annuities Improvements Act,\nthe State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act, and the Court of\nClaims Technical and Procedural Improvements Act. It also contained a\nprovision cosponsored by myself and Senator Grassley which created a\nnew civil cause of action in Federal court for victims of international\nterrorism.\n\n I supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of\n1994, which, among other things, provided funding for 100,000 policemen\nfor communities all across the Nation. While there were several\nprovisions in this bill with which I strongly disagreed, on balance,\nits good provisions far outweighed its bad. I saw it as a positive and\ncomprehensive effort to stop the onslaught of crime and drugs in our\nsociety.\n Of course, there have been disappointments over the years, such as\nthe failure to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning and\none to require a balanced Federal budget. I and many others in Congress\nworked long and hard to pass these measures, and they came close in the\nmost recent 104th Congress. I think especially in terms of the balanced\nbudget amendment, that we will ultimately be successful. I will\ncontinue doing all in my power as a private citizen to see that these\namendments are added to our Constitution.\n Much of my time and energy in the 104th Congress was spent on a bill\nto establish an independent Court of Administrative Law Judges. I have\nalways thought it absurd that Federal agencies were allowed to judge\ncases involving themselves and outside parties. How can a ``judge'',\nemployed by the agency he is serving, be expected to decide cases\nfairly and impartially? The bureaucrats fought this proposal\ntenaciously, and again, we were unsuccessful. We did, however, come\ncloser in 1996 than ever before, and I remain hopeful that the next\nCongress will see the wisdom of ensuring independence in Federal\nadministrative law.\n Another item which ultimately failed in the 104th Congress was\ncomprehensive regulatory reform. I joined with Senators Dole and\nJohnston in seeking to provide a cost-benefit analysis in terms of\ncertain regulations whose economic impact exceeded $100 million.\nRegulatory reform should remain at the top of the congressional agenda.\n One issue on which its opponents, including myself, were successful\non was in preventing product liability reform from passing. So-called\nproduct liability reform legislation was billed as an effort to rein in\nerrant juries and limit excessive awards to plaintiffs. While I do\nsupport tort reform, I believe it should be done at the State level and\nwithout weakening the jury system. The right of trial by jury is one of\nthe most sacred rights we have as Americans, and nothing should be done\nto limit that right or restrict a citizen's access to the judicial\nsystem. The federalized product liability reform bills contained many\nprovisions which would have immunized many tortfeasors in a manner\nwhich was grossly unfair. This type of legislation should continue to\nbe defeated so that our jury system--imperfect as it may be--remains\nstrong and the bulwark of our system of justice.\n In 1979, I convinced members of the Judiciary Committee to kill the\ncourt annexed arbitration bill, which would force parties in personal\ninjury, property, and contract cases under $100,000 to submit to\nmandatory arbitration in Federal court. I believed this bill was\nunconstitutional because it would deny the guarantee of a jury trial\nand the constitutional right of access to justice. An arbitration bill\nwhich doesn't penalize a party from seeking a trail de novo will go a\nlong way toward minimizing the faults of the proposal.\n In 1979, Congress passed an amended Federal Magistrates bill, which\nbecame Public Law 96-82. When it was first introduced, I criticized it\nas the third piece of a haphazard modification to the system in 10\nyears. Rather than amending it piecemeal, lawmakers should study and\napproach the whole system.\n In 1979, we passed a law, Public Law 96-43, to amend the Speedy Trial\nAct of 1974 in order to limit the delay from charge to trial in the\nFederal courts to no more than 100 days.\n In 1979, I opposed the Illinois Brick bill. After studying the case\ncarefully, I concluded that Justice Byron White had issued a correct\ndecision. I was fearful that if this legislation were adopted, class\naction antitrust cases would completely occupy the time of Federal\njudges and require a many-fold increase in the number of Federal judges\nin a short time.\n In 1979, when it passed the judiciary committee, I called the Equal\nAccess to Justice Act one of the best pieces of legislation I have\nseen. The bill would have allowed citizens whom the Government had\ntaken to court unjustifiably or who contested unreasonable regulations\nto recover attorney fees. In other words, if a citizen is proven right,\nhe doesn't have to pay for justice. The House never acted on this bill.\nBut in 1985, Congress passed Public Law 99-80, similar to the Equal\nAccess to Justice Act. This law allowed local governments, individuals,\nand small businesses to collect attorneys' fees if they won cases\nagainst Federal agencies.\n In 1979, Congress passed the Justice System Improvement Act, Public\nLaw 96-157, to reauthorize the Law Enforcement Assistance\nAdministration. This bill created the Office of Justice Assistance,\nResearch and Statistics [OJARS] which would coordinate the\nadministration of the LEAA and two other, new agencies, the Bureau of\nJustice Statistics [BJS] and the National Institute of Justice [NIJ]. I\nhad become a strong supporter of the LEAA during\n\n[[Page S12453]]\n\nmy tenure as the chief justice of the supreme court. In Alabama, our\npolice and sheriff departments had been largely underfunded,\nundermanned, undertrained and unprofessional, but with the LEAA's help,\nthey developed into well-disciplined and professional organizations.\nUnfortunately, the LEAA died in 1980 during budget debate.\n In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to create the 11th U.S. Circuit\nCourt of Appeals, which became Public Law 96-452. The old\nFifth Circuit, which comprised six States, had become so overburdened\nthat it could no longer handle its caseload. In fact, its en banc\ncaseload was the largest in the country. We did have a great concern in\nthe Congress about the implications of the split to civil rights, since\nthis court generally handled the most important civil rights cases.\nJudge Frank Johnson served as an excellent advisor for the Court to\nensure that the Congress handled the split with care.\n\n In 1980, the Senate passed a bill calling for a ``State of the\nJudiciary'' speech by the Chief Justice. Congress as a whole largely\nignores the third branch until some crisis situation demands that we\nprovide additional Federal judges or implement some reorganization.\nThis idea has not yet materialized into law, but I still think it is a\ngood plan.\n In 1980, I introduced another bill to create a National Court of\nAppeals to relieve the overburdened Supreme Court. During 1979, the\nCourt heard less than 7 percent of the cases before it. This bill never\npassed either, but in the future, the Congress must arrive at some\nsolution to the overwhelming caseload of the Court.\n In 1982, we introduced legislation to amend Federal habeas corpus\nprocedures by restricting the power of the Federal courts to review and\noverturn State criminal convictions. There is a crying need to achieve\nfinality in our criminal justice system and to protect the integrity of\nthe State judiciary. I had also included certain provisions regarding\nhabeas corpus procedures in my Federal court study implementation bill.\nThe Republican 104th Congress passed some provisions relating to habeas\ncorpus reform, but it contained a number of questionable provisions.\n Provisions to create a State Justice Institute, which I had first\nintroduced in 1980, became part of Public Law 98-620. Specifically,\nwith the Institute, we sought to provide education for judges and\nofficers of the courts of the States as well as sound proceedings for\nmanaging and monitoring caseloads, and improvement of access to\njustice. Hoping to adhere to the doctrine of federalism and separation\nof powers, we designed the Institute to assure strong and effective\nState courts, and thereby improve the quality of justice available to\nthe American people. These ends were all the more important since\nrecently enacted Federal laws, including the speedy trial act, had\nincreased the cases sent to State courts.\n This law also amended title 28, United States Code, with respect to\nthe places where court shall be held in certain judicial districts. It\nalso included several other provisions. The first established an\nIntercircuit Tribunal. The second clarified the circumstances under\nwhich a trademark may be canceled or abandoned. The last pertained to\nthe authority of the special counsel.\n In 1980, Congress passed a bill to cut costs and delays in antitrust\ntrials. This bill became Public Law 96-349.\n In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to create a U.S. Court of\nInternational Trade and to reform the judiciary machinery relating to\ntrade. This bill became Public Law 96-417.\n In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to make certain that Federal\ncourts hear all cases under their jurisdiction. Before this bill\npassed, the amount in controversy determined whether or not a Federal\ncourt would hear any given case. This bill became Public Law 96-486.\n In 1982, Congress created the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal\nCircuit. A new law, Public Law 97-164, combined the U.S. Court of\nCustoms and Patent Appeals and the U.S. Court of Claims. The new court\nhad the same authority as the other 12 U.S. Circuits, but its\njurisdiction was national, rather than regional, and determined by\nsubject matter.\n During hearings in the 96th Congress, I declared that it was time to\ndeclare a war on crime, and in the following Congress I introduced a\nnumber of measures I hoped might effectively reduce it. Elements of my\npackage became law over the years immediately following. Public Law 97-\n285 set penalties for crimes against cabinet officers, Supreme Court\nJustices, and Presidential staff members. Public Law 97-291 created\nadditional protections for and assistance to victims and witnesses in\nFederal cases. Public Law 98-127 dealt with tampering, as in the case\nof the Tylenol murders. Public Law 98-292 was designed to fight the\nsexual exploitation of children. Public Law 98-305 criminalized the\nrobbery of a controlled substance.\n In October 1984, several other elements of my war on crime package\nbecame Public Law 98-473. This law included the Justice Assistance Act\nto provide aid to State law enforcement, after the model of the defunct\nLEAA. It provided for victims' compensation. The law also included\nmandatory sentencing for use of firearms in a Federal crime, and other\nsentencing guidelines including the creation of a sentencing commission\nto establish standards for punishment in Federal crimes. Further, it\nprovided for Federal prosecution of murders-for-hire, drug trafficking,\npharmacy robbery, labor racketeering, computer fraud, and assaults on\nFederal officials. Last, the law included provisions which shifted the\nburden of proof in the insanity defense to the defendant. The Hinckley\nacquittal inspired this language. However, the act contained some\nquestionable provisions which I opposed.\n In 1984, Congress passed a bill to amend the Clayton Act, relating to\nantitrust laws, as it applied to local governments.\n In 1984, Congress, passed Public Law 98-547 to fight auto thefts in\nwhich the criminals stripped and sold the vehicle as spare parts. The\nlaw required identifying numbers on the major parts.\n In 1985, we extended the deadline for the sentencing commission,\ncreated by Public Law 98-473, to finalize its guidelines.\nThis extension was included in Public Law 99-417. Another law, Public\nLaw 99-22, made minor changes to the commission.\n\n In 1985, we passed another law, Public Law 99-218, regarding the\nSupreme Court Police and its authority to protect the Justices and\nofficers of the Court.\n In 1986, we passed Public Law 99-303 to fight sexual molestation in\nIndian Country.\n In 1986, we reformed Federal justice and judges survivors' annuities\nwith Public Law 99-336.\n That year, we also amended the False Claims Act with Public Law 99-\n562 to strengthen enforcement provisions for making false claims to the\nFederal Government. This bill also included protections for\nwhistleblowers, something that we had worked on for a long time. In our\nview, these protections were particularly important in preventing\nGovernment waste, in the Defense Department, and in other areas.\n In 1986, we banned advertisements for child pornography with Public\nLaw 99-628.\n In 1986, Congress improved the delivery of legal services to\nindigents with Public Law 99-651.\n In 1987, Congress passed Public Law 100-236 to amend the laws\ngoverning multiple appeals filed on orders from Federal agencies. Until\nthat time, lawyers frequently filed appeals in different courthouses in\norder to draw a judge they thought would be favorable to their case.\nThe new laws allow 10 days to appeal an order, and created a lottery\nsystem for selection of the judge if multiple appeals were filed.\n In 1987, I introduced legislation to change the administrative law\nsystem. Congress has considered this language several times since, but\nit has not yet passed a bill. Administrative Law Judges are employed\nand housed by the agencies they oversee. This system represents a clear\nconflict of interest. I believe that judges must, instead, be\nindependent, and for this reason I sought to create an independent\ncorps of administrative law judges. I strongly recommend that Congress\naddress the problem in the future.\n In 1988, Congress passed the Permanent Federal Court Study Act, which\nI had originally introduced during 1980 as part of a package which had\nincluded the unsuccessful National Court of Appeals. The Federal court\nstudy committee language became part of\n\n[[Page S12454]]\n\nPublic Law 100-702. We designed the Federal court study committee to\nplan for the long range needs of the judiciary. I believe that reform\nmust keep costs in mind, and it must avoid a careless, band-aid\napproach. These two conditions are required if we are to maintain\npublic confidence in the judicial system.\n Public Law 100-702 also included other significant provisions. It\nraised jurisdictional authority in Federal diversity cases from $10,000\nto $50,000. It also reauthorized the State Justice Institute, created\npilot programs of voluntary court-annexed arbitration, resolved\ndistrict court jurisdictions under the Tucker Act, established methods\nof adopting recommendations of the Judicial Conference, and reformed\njury selection. In a letter addressed to me, Chief Justice Rehnquist\ncalled the bill ``probably the most significant measure affecting the\noperation and administration of the Federal Judiciary to be considered\nby the Congress in over a decade.'' Rehnquist also wrote that passage\nof the bill ``with its many and varied provisions to improve different\naspects of the judicial system, will significantly enhance the\neffectiveness of the Federal Judiciary as a whole.''\n In 1988, Congress passed another bill which had been part of the 1980\npackage which ultimately became Public Law 100-702. This bill gave the\nSupreme Court greater discretion in selection of its cases. This\nlanguage took 8 years to pass, but it finally became part of Public Law\n100-352.\n In 1988, the Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which\nbecame Public Law 100-690. This new law included the creation of a drug\nczar, which had been eliminated from my 1984 crime package. This new\nlaw also included the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Partnership Act and\nthe Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act.\n In 1988, Congress passed a new law, Public Law 100-694, to protect\nFederal employees from the threat of lawsuits based on their work\nperformance. The bill was designed to overturn the 1988 Supreme Court\ndecision, Westfall versus Erwin.\n In 1988, we passed Public Law 100-700 to make it a crime to knowingly\ndefraud or attempt to defraud the Government in contracts of $1 million\nor more.\n I strongly supported a constitutional amendment to ban flagburning in\nthe late 1980's, and I spent a great deal of time on it in the most\nrecent Congress.\n In 1990, Congress authorized the appointment of 74 new U.S. district\nand 11 new U.S. circuit judges with Public Law 101-650. Importantly,\nthis new law also incorporated the Judicial Discipline Reform Act to\nimprove procedures for disciplining Federal judges, and to establish a\nNational Commission on Judicial Discipline. The final language to\ndiscipline judges short of impeachment was the culmination of years of\nwork that had included a proposed constitutional amendment. I had also\nproposed another constitutional amendment in 1988 to reform the actual\nimpeachment proceedings, which had proven themselves to be cumbersome.\n Public Law 101-650 contained some other miscellaneous provisions. The\nlaw also contained language to address television violence by removing\nfrom antitrust laws any cooperation within the industry to reduce it.\nThe law included provisions to deal with computer software copyright\nlaws. This bill also contains S. 1198, the Visual Artists Rights Act,\nwhich gives creators of certain artistic visual works the right to\nprevent modification or destruction of their work.\n\n In 1992, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Technical\nAmendments Act, Public Law 102-354, to make technical corrections to\nChapter 5 of title 5, U.S.C. This law also amended the Alternative\nDispute Resolution Act (Public Law 101-552) to authorize Federal\nagencies to resolve disputes between two other parties.\n In 1992, Congress passed the ``Dead-Beat Dad'' bill. This became\nPublic Law 102-521.\n In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Courts Administration Act of\n1992, which became Public Law 102-572. This law was actually a\nconglomerate of several bills. It codified certain recommendations of\nthe Federal Courts Study Committee, which I believe had turned out to\nbe a valuable experiment. It reformed the judicial survivors' annuities\nsystem. It reauthorized the State Justice Institute for fiscal years\n1993-1996. It altered the claims litigation procedure before a newly\nrenamed U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Public Law 102-572 also included\nlanguage Senator Grassley and I wrote in order to create a new civil\ncause of action in Federal court for victims of international\nterrorism.\n In 1992, Congress passed a bill to authorize the Juvenile Justice and\nDelinquency Prevention Act of 1974. This legislation became Public Law\n102-586.\n With Public Law 103-192, Congress extended pilot arbitration programs\nin 20 district courts for one year.\n Public Law 103-420 reauthorized 10 mandatory and 10 voluntary court\nannexed arbitration pilot programs, and authorized the judiciary\nautomation fund. It also extended the deadline for the Rand Corp.'s\nstudy of civil litigation.\n Public Law 103-305 changed the rules on the EEOC's guidelines\nregarding religious harassment in the workplace. With this law, we\nsought to allow personal expressions of religious belief, which until\nthat time had been prohibited. Similar language had stalled in the 102d\nCongress due to abortion controversies.\n\n bankruptcy\n\n Our work in the Senate significantly affected the language in Public\nLaw 96-56. This bill (H.R. 2807) originated in the House to amend the\nBankruptcy Act to prohibit the discharge of federally insured or\nguaranteed student loans until 5 years after graduation. The Bankruptcy\nReform Act (Public Law 95-598) had repealed this prohibition until the\nfirst day of fiscal year 1980, but Congress filled the gap with H.R.\n2807. Specifically, before we attached our amendment in the Senate, the\nbill would only have covered loans repayable directly to the Federal\nGovernment or to a nonprofit educational institution.\n\n In 1984, we passed a much more significant bankruptcy measure to\nbring Federal bankruptcy courts in line with the Supreme Court's\nMarathon decision. This bill became Public Law 98-353. With Marathon,\nthe Court ruled that 1978 bankruptcy law was unconstitutional because\nthe bankruptcy judges, who are not appointed for life, should not have\nthe same authority as other judges. The bill put bankruptcy under the\njurisdiction of the district courts, but gave the article I bankruptcy\njudges the power to hear these cases. With this law, we averted the\nneed to appoint 200 new article III judges for life.\n Notably, with this bankruptcy legislation, we also sought to protect\nfarmers, catfish growers, and shrimpers who lost their crops in a\nprocessing or storage facility which went bankrupt. Further, the\nlegislation was designed to prevent drunk drivers from escaping their\nliability through bankruptcy laws.\n Passage of this bill took time, however, and under the Marathon\ndecision, the extant system would collapse--leaving half a million\nunheard cases. For this reason, until the major bill became law, we\nneeded to extend the temporary arrangement twice. We accomplished the\nextension with Public Law 98-249 and Public Law 98-271.\n Another bankruptcy law which passed in 1984, Public Law 98-531,\nclarified laws on retirement for bankruptcy judges.\n In 1986, the Congress passed another major bankruptcy law. This law,\nPublic Law 99-554, provided for the appointment of 52 additional\nbankruptcy judges. The law also allowed for the appointment of trustees\nunder the Department of Justice to handle the administration of\nbankruptcy cases. Last, the bill paid special attention to small\nfarmers who went bankrupt and included language to help them avoid\nliquidation.\n Two other bankruptcy bills became law in 1987. Public Law 100-99\npertained to protections under title 11. Public Law 100-202 included\nlanguage to specify salaries for magistrates and bankruptcy judges.\n There were four more bankruptcy bills which became law in 1988. The\nfirst clarified laws pertaining to insurance benefits under the\nbankruptcy code for retirees. It became Public Law 100-334. A second\nauthorized additional bankruptcy judges in Colorado, Kansas,\n\n[[Page S12455]]\n\nTexas, Alaska, and Kentucky. This bill became Public Law 100-587. A\nthird clarified the bankruptcy laws as they applied to municipalities,\nincluding changes to the laws governing their bond issues for public\nworks. It became Public Law 100-597. Last, Congress passed legislation\nto provide for retirement and survivors' annuity for bankruptcy judges\nand magistrates, etc. This bill became Public Law 100-569.\n In 1990, we passed a bill to clarify the laws governing swap\nagreements and forward contracts. It became Public Law 101-311.\n That year, Congress also passed a law to prohibit drunk-drivers from\ndischarging debts arising from their actions under chapter 13. This\nbecame Public Law 101-581.\n The 1990 crime bill included some bankruptcy provisions pertaining to\nthe collection of debts to the U.S. Government and the discharge of\ndebts in bankruptcy. This bill became Public Law 101-647.\n In 1992, Congress passed a bill to authorize the appointment of\nadditional bankruptcy judges. This bill became Public Law 102-361.\nAlabama was to receive another bankruptcy judge for the Northern\ndistrict.\n 1994 saw the passage of a major bankruptcy reform bill. This bill\nbecame Public Law 103-394. It modified provisions concerning the rights\nof debtors and creditors and altered the relationship between secured\nand unsecured creditors. It increased the efficiency of the business\nreorganization procedures. It encouraged the use of procedures that\nallow individual debtors to pay their debts over time instead of facing\nliquidation. It also created a bankruptcy review commission to report\non needed substantive changes. The bill sought to modernize the\nadministration of the bankruptcy process by establishing clear\nauthority for bankruptcy courts to manage their dockets activity\nthrough the use of status conferences. The bill strengthened extant law\nto encourage Federal appeals courts to establish a bankruptcy appellate\npanel to promote expedient bankruptcy appeals.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12455", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO MARSHALL B. DURBIN, SR.", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12455", "S12456", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12455", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12455-S12456]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO MARSHALL B. DURBIN, SR.\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, just before the sine die\nadjournment, the Alabama Business Hall of Fame at the University of\nAlabama announced that the late Marshall B. Durbin, Sr., would be\ninducted posthumously into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. Marshall\nDurbin was the sort of business visionary blessed with the ability to\nturn his dreams into the reality of accomplishments.\n Born to O.C. Durbin and Ola Culp Durbin February 27, 1901, in Chilton\nCounty, AL, Marshall Durbin, Sr., passed away in November 1971, leaving\nbehind him then four brothers, five sisters, a widow, a son, and what\nis now one of the top poultry companies in the United States, with\nfacilities in three States, markets as far flung as Russia and the Far\nEast, annual sales of about $200 million, and more than 2,200\nemployees.\n To gain a more complete understanding of Marshall Durbin, Sr., it\nhelps to turn the pages of history back to the late 1920's when the\nenterprising young Alabamian--whose formal education ended at third\ngrade--moved off the family farm to the big city of Birmingham to enter\nthe real estate business. But the stock market crash of October 1929,\nfollowed by the Great Depression, led him quickly to the conclusion\nthat this would not be the most profitable course to follow. Reviewing\nhis options, Mr. Durbin decided that regardless of economic conditions,\n``People will want to eat.'' So in 1930, with $500 in funds borrowed\nfrom his bride, the late Eula Sims Durbin, he established a retail fish\nstand. Two years later, he added poultry--and a second stand.\n From those small retail stands Marshall Durbin Cos., grew into its\npresent-day status as a vertically integrated company, complete with\nits own hatcheries, breeder flocks, contract growers, warehouses,\nprocessing plants, cooking plants, feed mills, fleet, and distribution\nfacilities. The growth in Marshall Durbin Sr.'s business was mirrored\nby that of the Alabama poultry industry, which today has a major impact\non the State's economy. By producing more than 882 million broilers, it\nprovides employment for some 55,000 Alabamians and income for almost\n4,000 farmers--and has a total industry impact of almost $7.5 billion.\n During his years of industry leadership Mr. Durbin actively supported\norganizations that would contribute to its growth--and the growth of\nhis State. For example, he was a cofounder of the Southeastern Poultry\nand Egg Association, served as president of the Alabama Poultry\nProcessors Association and was cofounder of the Alabama Poultry\nIndustry Association. On the national level, he was a cofounder of the\nNational Broiler Council and the first president of the National\nBroiler Marketing Association, plus he served 15 years as a member of\nthe board of directors of the Institute of American Poultry Industries.\n ``His principle business philosophy was hard work and lots of it,''\nremembers Marshall B. Durbin, Jr., who succeeded his father as head of\nMarshall Durbin Cos., after working in the business with him for many\nyears. ``In the early years, he would be on the streets making personal\ncalls to hotels and restaurants at 4 a.m.--calling on the chefs in\nperson. There was a lot of competition, and often the company that got\nthe business was the first one there. ``He always tried to be the first\none there.'' Mr. Marshall, Junior, is a very good friend of mine and we\nhave talked extensively about his father and his legacy over the years.\n\n Another place Marshall Durbin came in first was in his belief that\nchicken could be a viable business in the South. In the pre-World War\nII era, the Midwest seemingly had a lock on the market due to the\nproducers' close proximity to ample supplies of corn and grain. Mr.\nDurbin worked long and hard to help convince railway companies to move\nto larger railcars and concurrently reduce rates, selling them on the\nargument that by the reduction they could increase volume and profits.\nThis led to a shift in agricultural economics, with the South producing\nmore chickens and the Midwest focusing its efforts on growing more corn\nand soybean to feed those chickens. He also led the way in promoting\nthe nutritional value of chicken; it was at his urging in the early\n1960's that the National Broiler Council initiated, with Kellogg's Corn\nFlakes and the Cling Peach Association a joint advertising program\ncentered around this theme and aimed at women's magazines.\n Mr. Marshall, Junior, also remembers his father, who over the years\nfurthered his education with such readings as ``Plutarch's Lives'' and\nWill Durant's ``The Story of Civilization'', as a fair man. ``He was a\ngood leader--a fair leader. I remember him as stern but friendly. Of\ncourse as happens in most businesses we sometimes disagreed on how\nthings should be done because of the generational differences. But I\ncan remember that for a while after he died when I had a problem I\nwould still find myself getting up and going into his vacant office to\nask for advice * * * by then I had learned that his counsel was\ngenerally right.''\n The son says he believes his father, who in his later years found\ntime for fishing and always reserved his Sundays to take his\ngranddaughters to the zoo and then out for hamburgers, would most like\nto be remembered for the way he helped set the course for the poultry\nindustry in not only Alabama and the Southeast, but in the United\nStates.\n Perhaps Marshall Durbin, Senior's most significant legacy in that\nregard stemmed from his tenure on the U.S. Department of Agriculture\nNational Advisory Committee in the middle 1960's. At the time, the USDA\nwas in the process of introducing a proposal to impose production\nquotas and price controls on the poultry industry. Having seen what a\ndetrimental effect similar policy measures had wreaked on the cotton\nindustry, Mr. Durbin used his membership on the National Advisory\nCommittee to position himself in the leadership of the opposition to\nquotas.\n The result of those months of work in Washington, DC, are still felt\ntoday. Thanks to the efforts of Marshall Durbin, Senior and those who\nworked with him, no lids were imposed on poultry-production, and unlike\nKing Cotton, long ago dethroned in the world market, the poultry\nbusiness has grown exponentially. For example, when Mr. Durbin went to\nWashington to first battle for this cause, the United States\n\n[[Page S12456]]\n\nwas producing 2.3 billion chickens annually, while in 1995 some 7.3\nbillion birds were produced. And over the years, Alabama has been the\nbeneficiary of much of this growth--as is evidenced by the fact it is\nnow the third largest poultry-producing State in the Nation.\n Even 25 years ago the relevance of Marshall Durbin Senior's national\npolicy work in the District of Columbia was well known. As then said\nthe Southeastern Poultry Times, ``His influence there was credited with\nhelping to keep the poultry industry free of production and price\ncontrols and today the poultry industry is among the remaining `free\nenterprise' industries of agriculture.''\n Around the State, his efforts were also well recognized, as evidenced\nby his 1969 induction in the Alabama Poultry Hall of Fame. And upon his\ndeath in 1971, the trade magazine ``Broiler Industry'' drew upon the\nwords of Ralph Waldo Emerson to best capture the industry leaders'\naccomplishments, writing, ``if, as Emerson said, `an institution is\nlengthened by the shadow of one man,' then Marshall Durbin, Sr., was\nsuch a man * * * he was a man who always knew where he was going, and\nhow he was going to get there--a true natural leader * * *. He was one\nof the best integrated broiler operators in the United States.''\n But perhaps the final tribute to Marshall Durbin, Senior, is that he\ngave his vision the roots to continue to grow.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12456-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO BILL MITCHELL", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12456", "S12456", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12456", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12456]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO BILL MITCHELL\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, just before the sine die\nadjournment, the Alabama Business Hall of Fame at the University of\nAlabama announced that Bill Mitchell would be one of its inductees this\nyear. Bill is the retired president of First National Bank of Florence,\nwhich is now SunTrust Bank.\n This University of Alabama Law School graduate has spent his life\nserving his community. He has served as president of the Muscle Shoals,\nAlabama, Regional Library Board, the Florence Chamber of Commerce, the\nFlorence Rotary Club, and the Lauderdale County Chapter of the American\nRed Cross.\n Bill has also been a member of the board of directors of the Alabama\nState Chamber of Commerce, the Alabama Department of Archives and\nHistory Board of Trustees, the University of Alabama System Board of\nTrustees, the University of Alabama College of Commerce and Business\nAdministration Board of Visitors, and the University of North Alabama\npresident's cabinet.\n His rich heritage suits this honor well. He still attends First\nPresbyterian Church in Florence, where his great-grandfather, a Scotch-\nIrish immigrant, served as pastor during the 1850's. His grandfather\nserved as a probate judge, a representative in the Alabama Legislature,\nand State tax commissioner. His father served in the State senate and\nas president of the Alabama State Bar.\n Bill earned a noncombatant Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster and a\nLegion of Merit award for his service during World War II. Before going\ninto banking, he practiced law in Florence from 1946 to 1958.\n According to an Alabama Business Hall of Fame report, the purpose of\nthis award is to honor ``the names and accomplishments of the State's\nmost distinguished business leaders.'' Bill Mitchell certainly fits\nthis description. He has succeeded by following his own advice: ``Learn\na lot about a lot of things, work hard and get to know people.'' He is\na living example of the wisdom of that advice, for he has practiced it\nand lived it throughout his life.\n In fact, few people have been as instrumental in making the city of\nFlorence what it is today as he has. He has been involved in virtually\nevery organized effort aimed at improving the quality of life for its\nresidents. He has a lengthy list of leadership positions and career\npositions. He has often been called upon to serve as the president of\ncharitable and civic organizations like those mentioned above. He has\nmade his mark in business and has served his family and church\nfaithfully.\n I am pleased to commend and congratulate Bill Mitchell for being\ninducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. He continues to bring\nhonor to his city and its citizens who have been the beneficiaries of\nhis many years of outstanding and selfless service.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12456-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "REGARDING H.R. 2505 ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12456", "S12458", "[{\"name\": \"Frank H. Murkowski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2505\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2505\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2505\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12456", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12456-S12458]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n REGARDING H.R. 2505 ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT\n\n Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, during the closing days of the\n104th Congress, I spoke many times about how a single Senator, with or\nwithout cause, can prevent any piece of legislation from moving\nforward, even if it is noncontroversial. Unfortunately, this seems to\nbe the case with a piece of legislation that is very important to me\nand the people of my State.\n H.R. 2505 was passed by the House on September 26, 1996, at that time\nI had the legislation held at the desk in the Senate and continually\ntried to get it passed. Unfortunately, I was told that there was a\nDemocratic hold on this legislation and it would not be able to move\nthrough the Senate in the final hours. I am deeply disappointed by this\nand am even more disturbed knowing that it was the result of a\npolitical decision and not one based on substance.\n H.R. 2505 is a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act\nto make certain clarifications to the land bank protection provisions,\nand for other purposes. I supported all of the provisions in this\npackage, Mr. President, and am very disappointed that it was not\nallowed to move forward on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The greatest\nconsequence the failure to pass this legislation will have on the\npeople of Alaska will be felt most severely in the Calista region.\n Section 5 of H.R. 2505 implements a land exchange with the Calista\nCorporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation organized under the\nauthority of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This exchange,\noriginally authorized in 1991, by Public Law 102-172, would provide for\nthe United States to acquire approximately 225,000 acres of Calista and\nvillage corporation lands and interests in lands within the Yukon Delta\nNational Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Alaska.\n The refuge serves as important habitat and breeding and nesting\ngrounds for a variety of fish and wildlife, including numerous species\nof migratory birds and waterfowl. As a result, the\n\n[[Page S12457]]\n\nCalista exchange will enhance the conservation and protection of these\nvital habitats and thereby further the purpose of ANCSA and the Alaska\nNational Interest Lands Conservation Act.\n In addition to conservation benefits, this exchange will also render\nmuch needed economic benefit to the Yupik Eskimo people of southwestern\nAlaska. The Calista region is burdened by some of the harshest economic\nand social conditions in the Nation. As a result of this exchange, the\nCalista Corporation will be better able to make the kind of investments\nthat will improve the region's economy and the lives of the Yupik\npeople. In this regard, this provision furthers and carries out the\nunderlying purposes of ANCSA.\n This provision, is, in part, the result of discussions by the various\ninterested parties. As a result of those discussions, a number of\nmodifications were made to the original package of lands offered for\nexchange. Chief among these were the addition of another 27,000 acres\nof surface estate--fee and conservation easements--of village\ncorporation lands, as well as the Calista subsurface estate lying\nunderneath those lands, and the removal of the Tuluksak mineralized\nparcel from the exchange.\n In a last minute agreement to move the bill through the House, the\ntotal value of the exchange package was reduced by 25 percent to $30\nmillion. Such a reduction was unwarranted and seriously undermined the\nutility and benefit of the provision for the public and for Calista and\nthe 12 village corporations involved. I intend to do all I can to\nrestore this value to the exchange package next year and will call on\nmy colleagues on both sides of the aisle to assist in remedying this\nproblem.\n Mr. President, it is time to move forward with this exchange. It is\nmy firm intent to see this exchange go forward so that the mutual\nbenefits to Calista and to conservation of the natural resources within\nthe region can be achieved.\n Following are some of the letters of support from conservationist for\nimplementing the land exchange with Calista.\n The material follows:\n\n National Audubon Society,\n\n Anchorage, AK, July 10, 1996.\n Hon. Don Young,\n House Resources Committee,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Congressman Young: I'm writing on behalf of the\n National Audubon Society including its 2,200 Alaska members\n to support your legislative efforts to achieve a land\n exchange authorized in P.L. 102-172 for the benefit of the\n Calista Corporation on the Yukon Delta National Wildlife\n Refuge.\n Audubon recognizes the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge\n as among the premier waterfowl production areas on the\n continent. Its wetland habitats produce an annual fall flight\n of geese, ducks and swans that benefit thousands of hunters\n and other wildlife enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Flyway.\n Most importantly, these waterfowl along with millions of\n other migratory birds, fish and game animals constitute the\n mainstay of the region's subsistence economy.\n After having worked with Calista and other partners for\n some 10 years on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management\n Plan, we are convinced that the majority of their\n stockholders fully realize how essential the protection of\n fish and wildlife habitat through flyway-wide cooperation is\n to the future of their people and the wildlife that grace\n their lives. Through the goose management plan, and with\n Calista's cooperation, we are achieving great success in\n restoring seriously depleted goose populations to healthy\n levels. The proposed land exchange will further enhance these\n and other joint efforts to conserve refuge fish and wildlife.\n We know that Calista has worked long and heard to negotiate\n a fair and equitable administrative land exchange with the\n Department of the Interior, but to no avail. Thus it appears\n congressional action is required to resolve the matter in a\n way that is most fair to Calista stockholders while providing\n greater protection to refuge resources of great state and\n national significance. We believe this can be accomplished by\n exchanging approximately 28,000 acres of surface and 182,000\n acres of subsurface estate for certain excess or surplus\n government properties as P.L. 102-172 provides. With federal\n acquisition monies becoming increasingly scarce, this seems\n an innovative and practical approach to better conserve our\n nation's wildlife heritage while helping the Calista\n Corporation and its stockholders better secure their economic\n future. In other words, this should be a win-win solution for\n all concerned.\n Thank you for your leadership on this important issue,\n Congressman Young, and for your consideration of our views.\n Sincerely,\n David R. Cline,\n Senior Wildlife Counselor.\n ____\n\n Ducks Unlimited, Inc.,\n\n Washington, DC, June 21, 1996.\n Hon. Don Young,\n Hon. George Miller,\n Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Mr. Young and Mr. Miller: We are aware of a pending\n land trade between the federal government and Calista Native\n Corporation. The area that would be acquired by the U.S. Fish\n and Wildlife Service in this swap is land that serves as a\n very important waterfowl breeding area for the Pacific and\n Central flyways of North America. Substantial portions of the\n populations of several waterfowl and other bird species use\n the Yukon-Kuskokwim river delta for breeding and as staging\n and stopover habitat in their annual migratory cycle.\n I understand that you have legislation under consideration\n that will facilitate a situation that allows the Fish and\n Wildlife Service to acquire these lands. Ducks Unlimited is\n in favor of assuring that these lands will be kept in a\n condition that will allow these birds maximum opportunity to\n complete their life cycle needs.\n Sincerely,\n Scott Sutherland,\n Director of Governmental Affairs.\n ____\n\n Herndon, VA, September 18, 1995.\n Hon. Don Young,\n Chairman, House Resources Committee,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Mr. Chairman: It has been brought to my attention that\n you are considering early actions to further the land\n exchange involving the Calista Regional Corporation (Calista)\n originally authorized by P.L. 102-172. As an individual with\n lengthy involvement in the implementation of the Alaska\n Native Claims Settlement Act, passage of the Alaska National\n Interest Lands Conservation Act, and numerous related Alaska\n issues including efforts to achieve completion of the Calista\n land exchange, I am writing this brief letter to express my\n support for actions that will further a fair and equitable\n exchange that benefits both the shareholders of Calista and\n the conservation interests of the Federal Government. You may\n recall that for nearly eight years I was in charge of the\n Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to support the\n Administration's proposals under Section 17(d)(2) of the\n ANCSA. In that capacity, I was directly involved with many\n discussions in the government and the Native leaders in the\n region and villages. Since leaving that FWS position, I\n continued having periodic involvements in Alaska matters. I\n am thoroughly familiar with the exchange provision in law and\n the efforts made by Calista to reach accord with the\n Department of the Interior.\n It has been my intent to write you a more detailed analysis\n of the difficulties that have afflicted the Calista exchange\n and to offer my support for your efforts to remove major\n impediments. The suddenness of the potential actions in your\n committee necessitate sending this shorter communication on\n the subject.\n The Calista Corporation has invested substantial resources\n and time in their efforts to resolve concerns within the\n Department of the Interior and to move forward with an\n exchange that represents fairness to the corporation and\n reasonable benefits to the government. Unfortunately, even\n with those tangible and resolute overtures by Calista, the\n exchange process never achieved the level of meaningful two-\n way communication necessary to resolve serious differences in\n approach. Thus, although I had sincerely hoped that a\n beneficial and just reconciliation of differences would be\n negotiated, there has been no real progress in this matter\n for more than a year.\n Mr. Chairman, even while we have had differences through\n the years, each of us have worked in his own way for self-\n determination, fairness and equity for the Native peoples of\n your great state. I believe that Calista has made an\n honorable offer of lands and interests in lands that would\n benefit the long-term conservation and management of the\n Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. They have sought\n fairness in the terms of the exchange, but they have been\n unable to engage the Interior Department representatives in\n meaningful negotiations. It appears necessary and important\n for you to assist Calista toward a just exchange arrangement\n that also provides the refuge with benefits at a fair cost. I\n will strongly support actions to accomplish those worthy\n goals.\n Sincerely yours,\n William C. Reffalt.\n ____\n\n Anchorage, AK, June 24, 1998.\n Speaker Newt Gingrich,\n Rayburn House Office Building,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Speaker Gingrich: I am writing to you in strong\n support of the Calista land exchange in H.R. 2505 and urge\n that you act on this measure as quickly as possible. As a\n long time resident of Alaska and someone concerned with\n conservation and sustainable economic development, I cannot\n overstate to you how important this exchange is--both to the\n people and the resources of the Calista region.\n The Calista land exchange involves outstanding fish and\n wildlife habitat located within the Yukon Delta National\n Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR). The Yukon Delta is one of\n\n[[Page S12458]]\n\n the most unique and productive delta ecosystems in the world.\n And, it is a place of my heart.\n Twenty years ago, I first experienced the Yukon Delta as my\n brother and I paddled by canoe over two thousand miles from\n the Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories of Canada\n across the old fur-trade route to the Yukon river, and then\n down to the Bering Sea. To us, the Yukon Delta had become an\n almost mythical destination. But, by the time we had reached\n the delta, we had become excited about ``ending'' our\n expedition, sponsored by Old Town Canoe Company, and we were\n eager to fly out. What we found there surprised and delighted\n both of us--a gentle and calm beauty and abundance neither of\n us had anticipated. This was, in our two-thousand mile\n journey, one of the most special places we had encountered.\n We decided to stay awhile.\n Later, as the University of Alaska's marine extension agent\n for western Alaska for several years based in Kotzebue, I\n returned to the area many times attempting to help the local\n people develop a commercial economy. I came to realize then\n what I learned at the end of our canoe expedition--that the\n highest and best use of this delta was in preserving it\n intact, just as it was.\n This is something that I think the local people came to\n realize long ago. Thousands of geese, ducks, loons, cranes,\n and swans, as well as seabirds and shorebirds migrate to this\n spectacular refuge every summer to breed and raise their\n young. The wetlands that exist on the Calista inholdings\n within the refuge provide critical habitat for many species\n of birds, fish, and mammals, making these areas an integral\n part of the ecosystem. Because wildlife do not often\n subscribe to politically constructed boundaries, any\n consideration for conserving this extraordinary ecosystem as\n a national wildlife refuge must include the Calista lands. It\n is crucial that Calista lands be protected in a manner\n consistent with the management objectives of the refuge.\n Unlike some Alaska Native corporations, it has been very\n difficult for the Native people of the Calista region to\n translate their land endowment into financial capital that\n can be used to provide shareholder dividends and to develop\n real, long-term cash economies.\n Thus, the exchange proposed in H.R. 2505 is somewhat\n sublime--surplus federal property for conservation. It could\n well become the U.S. version of the debt-for-nature exchanges\n now underway between international lending institutions and\n third-world countries to preserve dwindling habitat.\n This exchange, if approved, will help to protect ancestral\n lands and wildlife habitat, and it will provide Calista the\n money with which to hopefully jumpstart profitable business\n ventures elsewhere. I hope your action might also help\n alleviate other social problems in the region, such as the\n alarmingly high rates of suicide, infant mortality,\n hepatitis, meningitis, tuberculosis, alcoholism and\n unemployment.\n This is a chance to do something right, that will be\n remembered as such in history. Seldom do we get such a\n chance. It is my sincere hope that this exchange will be the\n first of many, bringing conservation, social, cultural, and\n economic benefits to rural Alaska.\n I urge that you take immediate action to ensure that this,\n and many other similar exchanges, are enacted.\n Sincerely,\n\n Rick Steiner,\n\n The Coastal Coalition,\n Anchorage, AK.\n ____\n\n The Conservation Fund,\n\n Shepherdstown, WV, September 22, 1995.\n Hon. Ted Stevens,\n U.S. Senate,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Senator Stevens: As I understand it, you are\n considering legislative steps to implement the land exchange\n authorized in P.L. 102-172 for the benefit of the Calista\n Corporation and of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.\n I am writing to you to voice my support for efforts in\n Congress to complete this exchange, which I believe would be\n of substantial benefit to the conservation of wildlife refuge\n resources in the Yukon Delta region.\n By way of background, as you may know, I was with the U.S.\n Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for 24 years. Three of\n those years were spent as the Alaska Regional Director of the\n USFWS from 1983 until 1987 and two years as the Associate\n Director in Washington, D.C. Since my retirement from\n government, I have served as the Director of Science for the\n Conservation Fund, a publicly supported non-profit\n organization dedicated to advancing land and water\n conservation.\n From studying the Calista land exchange, it appears that\n approximately 28,000 acres of fee or fee entitlement would be\n involved and 182,000 acres of subsurface estate. Given the\n nature of the lands in the Yukon Delta region, acquiring the\n subsurface estate as proposed will go a long way toward\n conserving the resources of the surface estate which contains\n critical fish and wildlife habitat in the northern sector of\n the Pacific Flyway. This is a wildlife refuge of tremendous\n resources clearly worthy of special conservation efforts.\n The exchange would make productive and creative use of\n certain excess or surplus government property in exchange for\n lands and interests in lands to be conserved. This seems to\n be a sensible approach to assist conservation while at the\n same time providing a means to enable an Alaska native\n Corporation to serve the most populous, undeveloped and the\n poorest Native region in the state. This is especially true\n considering the few dimes on the excess or surplus property\n dollar often associated with the sale of such lands in the\n Federal portfolio.\n I know that it has been difficult bringing this exchange to\n a successful conclusion. I believe, as you apparently do,\n that the time has come to resolve this in an expeditious way\n that is fair and reasonable for the landowner and for the\n government. As in the past, when a process gets so bogged\n down for whatever reason, that is it unable to deal fairly\n and effectively with an issue, it is likely that the Congress\n will need to step in to help achieve an equitable resolution.\n It appears that is the case here.\n Thank you again for your consideration of my views on this\n matter and I strongly urge you and your colleagues to take\n action soon to implement this land exchange.\n Sincerely,\n Robert E. Putz, Ph.D.\n ____\n\n California State Division, The Izaak Walton League of\n America,\n June 11, 1996.\n Hon. Don Young,\n Chairman, House Resources Committee,\n Washington, DC.\n Dear Mr. Chairman: The California Division of the Izaak\n Walton League of America is a non-profit grassroots\n organization whose members are dedicated to outdoor\n recreation and the conservation and the preservation of our\n natural resources. On behalf of the 500 members statewide, I\n am writing to offer my support of legislation that would\n facilitate the Calista Land transfers authorized by congress\n in 1991 and urge that this important measure be enacted\n expeditiously.\n This measure would help conserve and protect critical\n wildlife habitat located within the Yukon Delta National\n Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR) in the Calista region of Alaska. Much\n of the terrain involved provides low lying coastal habitat\n for waterfowl, fish and other wildlife typical of the Calista\n Region and the YDNWR. The YDNWR was established in 1980,\n pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands Act, to\n protect nesting and breeding habitats for large numbers of\n migratory birds. Millions of geese, duck, loons, cranes, and\n swans, as well as shorebirds and seabirds migrate to the\n spectacular refuge every summer to breed and raise their\n young. The wetlands that exist on these in holdings are world\n class and serve as unparalleled habitat for many species of\n birds and other wildlife.\n The specific wildlife that would be protected by this\n exchange is outstanding. For example, Pacific Bract, White\n Fronted Geese, Cackling Canada Geese and Emperor Geese nest\n on the parcels in the exchange. These birds are all ``species\n of Concern'' under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Their\n numbers have been declining precipitously. All waterfowl in\n the refuge, except for the Emperor Geese, use the Pacific\n flyway, wintering over at various locations along the U.S.\n West Coast and Mexico. In addition, most shorebirds nesting\n in the refuge also migrate along this flyway, wintering as\n far away as South America. Wintering overgrounds are where\n birds spend at least half of their lives. Securing the\n stability of these waterfowl populations' nesting and\n overwintering grounds must remain a priority if these\n populations are to thrive. The Calista land exchanges would\n enhance this overall protection.\n The Calista exchange involves both surface and sub-surface\n estates. Given the access and other rights of the subsurface\n estate owner to use and otherwise disturb the surface estate,\n in order to adequately protect the wildlife and associated\n habitats, it is imperative that the subsurface estate be\n protected as well. Consequently, acquisition of subsurface\n estates is crucial to carrying out the overall purposes of\n the refuge.\n In closing, if adequately protected, the wilderness lands\n offered by the Calista inholdings will create a legacy of the\n world class natural resources in the Yukon Delta National\n Wildlife Refuge that can be shared by anglers, hunters,\n boaters, ecotourists, wildlife viewers and subsistence users\n alike.\n Sincerely,\n Samuel A. Carr, Jr.,\n National Director.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12456", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "TRIBUTE TO GOODWYN L. MYRICK", "SENATE", "SENATE", "TRIBUTETO", "S12456", "S12456", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12456", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12456]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n TRIBUTE TO GOODWYN L. MYRICK\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, just before the sine die\nadjournment, the Alabama Business Hall of Fame at the University of\nAlabama announced that Goodwyn L. Myrick, the president and chief\nexecutive of the Alabama Farmers Federation and Alfa Insurance Co.,\nwould be inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame.\n Goodwyn is a native of Etowah County, AL, where he was born in 1925.\nHe established his first dairy herd in 1944 with eight cows. Today, M &\nH Farms--a partnership between Goodwyn, his son, Greg, his daughter,\nDonna, and son-in-law, Tony Haynes--has over 400 Holstein dairy cows\nand 700 head of beef cattle. It encompasses two farms and more than\n2,000 acres.\n In 1978, he was elected president of the Alabama Farmers Federation,\nand is currently serving his ninth term as president of the federation\nand Alfa Insurance Co. During his tenure, Alfa has had the greatest\namount of storm losses and the greatest amount of growth in its\nhistory, with $267 million in losses since 1978. At the same time, it\nhas grown by 1,000 percent. The Alabama Farmers Federation has seen its\nmembership grow from 223,000 in 1980 to nearly 400,000 today.\n Goodwyn's previous positions include president of the Etowah County\nFarm Bureau Federation; the board of directors of the Alabama Farm\nBureau Federation--predecessor organization to the Alabama Farmers\nFederation; and vice president of the federation.\n Considered one of the most influential businessmen in the State,\nGoodwyn joins the ranks of over 100 other distinguished corporate\nleaders in the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. These previous inductees\ninclude George Washington Carver, Winton ``Red'' Blount, and Aaron\nAronov.\n I am pleased to commend and congratulate Goodwyn Myrick for receiving\nthis most-deserved honor. The agricultural community of Alabama has\nnever had such a strong leader and loyal friend.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12458", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "ADDRESS BY AMBASSADOR RICHARD GARDNER: ``FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT AND WORLD ORDER: THE WORLD WE SOUGHT AND THE WORLD WE HAVE''", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12458", "S12463", "[{\"name\": \"Edward M. Kennedy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12458", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12458-S12463]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n ADDRESS BY AMBASSADOR RICHARD GARDNER: ``FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT AND WORLD\n ORDER: THE WORLD WE SOUGHT AND THE WORLD WE HAVE''\n\n Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Richard Gardner, the U.S.\nAmbassador to Spain and one of the Nation's most respected authorities\non foreign policy, delivered an important address in Turin, Italy, last\nmonth at a conference on the legacy of President Franklin Roosevelt in\nmodern international relations.\n Ambassador Gardner's address is an eloquent and instructive analysis\nof President Roosevelt's remarkable leadership in leading the United\nStates out of the isolationism that marked the\n\n[[Page S12459]]\n\nyears before World War II and his vision of a post-war world in which\nnations could and would work together to achieve common security,\npromote economic development, and protect human rights.\n Ambassador Gardner also perceptively analyzes our current efforts\nwith other nations to adapt these goals and ideals to the practical\nconditions and needs of the modern world.\n At a time when some in Congress are inclined to prefer isolationism\nand unilateral action, Ambassador Gardner's address offers a compelling\nanalysis that ``practical internationalism'' is the right approach for\nthe future. I believe that his address will be of great interest to all\nof us in Congress and to many others in the country, and I ask that it\nmay be printed in the Record.\n The material follows:\n\n Franklin Roosevelt and World Order: The World We Sought and the World\n We Have\n\n (Address by Richard N. Gardner, U.S. Ambassador to Spain, at the\n Conference on The Legacy of FDR)\n\n January 6, 1941: Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini are the\n masters of Western Europe. Nazi armies have over-run Poland,\n occupied Denmark and Norway, invaded the Netherlands and\n Belgium, and conquered France. Russia stands aside, faithful\n to the Hitler-Stalin pact. Only England resists the onslaught\n of Fascist tyranny, bracing itself under terrifying air raids\n for the expected German invasion.\n In Asia, the militarists of Japan are on the march. The\n United States is beginning, hesitantly, to give help to\n England, yet the Lend-Lease Act has not yet passed the\n Congress, and the American people are overwhelmingly against\n entering the European war. It is hard to imagine when or how\n peace and freedom can ever be restored to Europe--or the\n world.\n In this dark moment an American President, Franklin Delano\n Roosevelt, appears before the Congress of the United States.\n He tells the American people they face an unprecedented\n threat to their freedom. He pledges all of America's\n resources to the defense of the democracies. And he inspires\n his countrymen with the following statement of what the\n historic struggle is all about:\n ``As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by\n armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind\n them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and\n courage which come from an unshakable belief in the manner of\n life which they are defending. The mighty action which we are\n calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things\n worth fighting for.\n ``In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look\n forward to a world founded upon four essential human\n freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--\n everywhere in the world.\n ``The second is freedom of every person to worship God in\n his own way--everywhere in the world.\n ``The third is freedom from want--which, translated into\n world terms, means economic understandings which will secure\n to every nation a healthy peace time life for its\n inhabitants--everywhere in the world.\n ``The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into\n world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such\n a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be\n in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against\n any neighbor--anywhere in the world.\n ``That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a\n definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time\n and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of\n the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek\n to create with the crash of a bomb.\n ``To that new order we oppose the greater conception--the\n moral order. . . . The world order which we seek is the\n cooperation of free countries, working together in a\n friendly, civilized society.''\n What prompted Franklin Roosevelt to present this ambitious\n vision of a postwar world? What specific measures did he\n initiate to move toward that goal? What have been the\n results? What guidance can we find in his foreign policy\n legacy today? One could write a book about questions like\n these, but let me try, within the confines of one speech, to\n suggest some answers.\n I believe it is fitting that we discuss such questions in\n Europe, and particularly in Italy. Had Roosevelt not been\n President of the United States, it is doubtful that the\n United States would have moved so firmly in 1941 to oppose\n the Axis powers. With a different President, committed to\n an isolationist policy, Japan might not have attacked\n Pearl Harbor; Hitler and Mussolini might not have declared\n war on the United States. Europe might have lived for\n decades under Fascist tyranny.\n Moreover--and this is the point I wish to develop here--our\n postwar institutions for cooperation in peace and security,\n trade and development, and human rights might never have been\n created.\n Franklin Roosevelt was an idealist. But he was also, to use\n John F. Kennedy's famous description of himself, ``an\n idealist without illusions.'' He could be pragmatic--should I\n say even Machiavellian?--in accommodating to political\n realities, but he remained faithful to a consistent vision of\n the future. He understood only too well how hard it would be\n to realize the kind of postwar world he described, but he was\n equally convinced of the need to try.\n As Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate in 1920,\n Roosevelt had campaigned, in vain, for Woodrow Wilson's\n League of Nations. In his view, the rise of Fascism and the\n coming of the Second World War were caused in large part by\n the failure of the United States to join the League. He also\n blamed the peacemakers at Versailles for failing to create\n effective international institutions to assure collective\n security, economic solidarity, and human rights.\n He believed that the American people would never throw\n their full weight into the struggle against Fascism if they\n saw nothing better at the end of the road than more\n unrestrained military competition, more ``spheres of\n influence,'' more depression and economic nationalism, more\n colonial aggrandizement--and more war. He was convinced that\n these misfortunes would inevitably result unless the United\n States once and for all renounced isolationism and took the\n leadership in constructing a new world order based on\n enduring moral principles.\n As he told the Congress: ``We shall have to take the\n responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to\n bear the responsibility for another world conflict.''\n\n the world we sought\n\n Thus it was that Roosevelt moved swiftly, even before the\n United States entered the war, to lay the basis for American\n leadership in a postwar peace system. In an historic meeting\n at sea with Winston Churchill in August 1941, the two leaders\n proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter ``certain common\n principles . . . on which they base their hopes for a better\n future for the world.''\n The Charter contained eight fundamental propositions: no\n territorial aggrandizement; no imposed or undemocratic\n territorial changes; sovereign rights and self-government for\n all peoples; access, on equal terms, to the trade and raw\n materials of the world for ``all States, great or small,\n victor or vanquished''; international economic collaboration\n to secure ``improved labor standards, economic advancement\n and social security''; a postwar peace assuring safety to all\n nations and freedom from fear and want for all men; freedom\n of the seas; and, ``pending the establishment of a wider and\n permanent system of general security,'' the disarmament of\n aggressor nations and ``the reduction for peace-loving\n peoples of the crushing burden of armaments.''\n On January 1, 1942, the principles of the Atlantic Charter\n were subscribed to in a document promulgated in Washington by\n the 26 nations allied in the struggle against the Axis\n powers. That document was called the ``Declaration by the\n United Nations''--a term invented by President Roosevelt. It\n was his inspiration to propose the same term to describe the\n permanent peace organization that would be founded by the\n victorious allies at San Francisco.\n Roosevelt's conception of a postwar world order had three\n main elements--collective security, economic cooperation, and\n human rights. Each of these elements found its way into the\n United Nations Charter, and achieved concrete expression in\n global and regional institutions that remain with us today.\n We now take these concepts so much for granted that it is\n hard to realize how revolutionary they were when they were\n first set forth by Roosevelt and his Administration some 50\n years ago.\n To begin with, collective security. Roosevelt pressed a\n skeptical Winston Churchill and an unconvinced Joseph Stalin\n to accept the idea of a global organization to keep the\n peace. Churchill preferred several regional peace\n organizations; Stalin probably wanted none at all--just Big\n Three arrangements to keep the Axis powers disarmed and\n acceptance of a new Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.\n But Roosevelt prevailed. His postwar peace system seemed at\n the time a judicious blend of realism and idealism: Four so-\n called ``policemen''--the United States, Britain, Russia and\n China--would put their forces at the disposal of the United\n Nations to keep the peace and would receive the special\n privilege of the veto (later these became the five Permanent\n Members of the Security Council with the addition of\n France). All UN members large and small would undertake\n common commitments to settle their disputes peacefully and\n refrain from the threat or use of force against the\n territorial integrity or political independence of other\n nations.\n Roosevelt believed that the great powers should learn to\n live without colonial empires and spheres of influence,\n accepting the same obligations of international law as\n smaller countries. He applied this belief to the United\n States in Latin America just as he sought to apply it to the\n Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.\n As he had written in the journal Foreign Affairs as far\n back as 1928: ``The time has come when we must accept . . . a\n newer and better standard in international relations.''\n Should disorder threaten a sister nation in Latin America,\n ``it is not the right or the duty of the United States to\n intervene alone. It is rather the duty of the United States\n to associate with itself other American Republics, to give\n intelligent joint study to the problem, and, if the\n conditions warrant, to offer the helping hand or hands in the\n name of the Americas. Single-handed intervention by us in the\n affairs of other nations must\n\n[[Page S12460]]\n\n end; with the cooperation of others we shall have more order\n in this hemisphere and less dislike.''\n An important part of Roosevelt's concept of collective\n security was the control and regulation of armaments.\n Roosevelt was no believer in unilateral disarmament--one need\n only recall his effective work as Assistant Secretary of the\n Navy during the First World War and his leadership in making\n the United States the ``arsenal of democracy'' in the\n struggle against Fascism. But throughout his life he was a\n passionate supporter of multilateral and reciprocal\n disarmament under international control wherever it was\n achievable, and he looked towards a world in which all\n nations would be disarmed except the ``four policemen''--\n whose arms would be used only to safeguard the common\n security in accord with decisions of the Security Council of\n the United Nations.\n Although he died a few months before the first atomic bombs\n were dropped on Japan, he had begun to think about the\n terrible destructive power of nuclear weapons. A year after\n his death President Truman, following in the spirit of\n Roosevelt's thinking on disarmament, offered to turn over the\n then U.S. monopoly of nuclear weapons to the United Nations,\n if other countries would also foreswear their development.\n Stalin's rejection of this proposal, known as the Baruch\n Plan, set us on the path of the nuclear arms race and opened\n up today's frightening prospects of nuclear proliferation.\n There are those who believe that Roosevelt acquiesced in\n the domination by the Soviet Union of Eastern Europe is\n violation of the very universal principles he was espousing\n with the founding of the United Nations. The facts are to the\n contrary.\n At the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt secured from Stalin\n pledges of ``the earliest possible establishment through free\n elections of governments responsive to the will of the\n people'' (Declaration on Liberated Europe) and, in the case\n of Poland, ``free and unfettered elections . . . on the basis\n of universal suffrage and secret ballot'' (Declaration on\n Poland).\n The Soviet suppression of freedom in Eastern Europe was not\n the result of the Yalta Agreements--it took place in\n violation of them. In the weeks before his death, Roosevelt\n sent a stern message of protest to Stalin for his failure to\n honor the Yalta Agreements. But he was powerless to force the\n Russians out of countries their conquering armies had\n occupied.\n As the historian Robert Dallek has written after an\n exhaustive examination of the historical record: ``The\n suggestion that Roosevelt could have restrained this Soviet\n expansionism through greater realism or a tougher approach to\n Stalin in unpersuasive.'' To the same effect is George\n Kennan's judgment that as an aftermath of World War II ``no\n one could deny Stalin a wide military and political glacis on\n his western frontier . . . except at the cost of another war,\n which was unthinkable.''\n Finally, we have the testimony of Averell Harriman,\n Roosevelt's wartime Ambassador to the Soviet Union: ``It was\n Stalin's actions which brought on the Cold War. Roosevelt has\n been criticized for being taken in by Stalin and for unwisely\n trusting him. Nothing is more unfair. If he had failed to\n try, Roosevelt would have been held responsible for the\n breach between us.''\n Economic cooperation was the second essential element in\n Roosevelt's conception of world order. He was determined to\n put an end to the American tradition of economic nationalism\n and use American power to construct a new and cooperative\n international economic order. He had told his countrymen that\n American democracy could not survive if one-third of the\n nation were ill-housed, ill-clothed, and ill-fed; he now\n urged upon his countrymen the further recognition that\n American welfare could not be assured in a disordered and\n impoverished world economy.\n The Second World War, Roosevelt believed, was caused in\n part by the wild currency disorders, mass unemployment and\n economic desperation that brought Hitler and Mussolini to\n power. This time priority must be given to laying the\n economic foundations of the peace. And these foundations,\n while preserving the system of private enterprise, could not\n consist of unregulated market forces either within or between\n nations. To assure high levels of employment, growth, trade\n and economic justice would require an active role by\n governments working together through new international\n organizations.\n To this end, Roosevelt first of all rejected the idea of a\n Carthaginian peace--there were to be no war reparations\n exacted from Germany, Italy and Japan as Stalin and others\n wanted. On the contrary, the vanquished as well as the victor\n countries were to be given fair economic treatment and equal\n access to markets and raw materials. Not only that, but the\n peoples of vanquished as well as victor countries liberated\n from Fascism were to receive generous help from the United\n Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA), ably led by\n Herbert Lehman and later Fiorello La Guardia.\n To prevent another divisive postwar argument over the\n repayment of war debts, Roosevelt invented the Lend-Lease\n program, which brought $27 billion in wartime aid to Britain\n and $11 billion to the Soviet Union, with nothing asked in\n repayment except for a few hundred million dollars\n representing the postwar value of materials remaining at the\n end of hostilities. Lend-Lease was truly, as Churchill put\n it, the ``most unsordid act in history.''\n The heart of Roosevelt's plan for a new world economic\n order lay in three new organizations--the International\n Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and\n Development, and the International Trade Organization.\n Agreement on the first two of these institutions was reached\n at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the summer of 1944,\n almost a year before the San Francisco Conference approved\n the UN Charter.\n Roosevelt and his colleagues considered orderly currency\n arrangements and properly aligned exchange rates as basic to\n everything else--hence the International Monetary Fund which\n was to assure a system of stable but adjustable par values,\n the elimination of exchange controls on current transactions,\n and a pool of currencies that could give countries time to\n adjust their balance of payments problems without measures\n destructive of their own or other countries' economic\n stability.\n Essential to the success of the par value system, however,\n was the harmonization of national monetary and fiscal\n policies. The original version of the White Plan was explicit\n in this regard--members were obliged ``not to adopt any\n monetary or banking measure promoting either serious\n inflation or serious deflation without the consent of a\n majority of member votes of the Fund.'' In the negotiations\n leading to Bretton Woods, however, references to the\n limitation of national economic sovereignty were\n progressively weakened, in deference to political realities\n in Britain and the United States (and probably other\n countries).\n The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development\n was mainly conceived as an agency for postwar reconstruction.\n With a relatively small amount of paid-in capital, it was to\n operate principally by issuing bonds on the private capital\n market. The Bank was conceived without much thought to the\n vast needs of the developing countries, though it provided a\n valuable framework that could eventually be adapted to\n assisting them. Its founders also underestimated the\n requirements of postwar reconstruction in Europe and Japan,\n which had to be dealt with through the Marshall Plan, whose\n 50th anniversary we celebrate next year.\n When Roosevelt became President, the United States had only\n recently enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, the highest in its\n history. Thanks to Roosevelt's reciprocal trade agreements\n program, under which Congress delegated broad tariff-cutting\n powers to the President, the United States was finally in a\n position to work with other countries for the removal of\n trade barriers and the elimination of trade discrimination.\n Thus, when the U.S. Congress refused to approve the\n International Trade Organization, the world was fortunate to\n be able to fall back on a multilateral trade agreement--\n GATT--which had been negotiated in 1947 under the authority\n of Roosevelt's trade legislation. GATT became the instrument\n for 50 years of largely successful negotiations to reduce\n tariffs and non-tariff barriers and resolve trade disputes.\n In Roosevelt's concept of postwar economic cooperation, the\n International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the\n International Trade Organization were to operate as largely\n autonomous ``Specialized Agencies,'' loosely ``coordinated''\n by the General Assembly of the United Nations and by the\n Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Other major Specialized\n Agencies that emerged as a result of Roosevelt's leadership\n included the Food and Agriculture Organization, the\n International Labor Organization, the World Health\n Organization, UNESCO, and the International Civil Aviation\n Organization. ECOSOC was empowered to receive reports from\n the Specialized Agencies, to undertake studies, to call\n conferences, and to issue recommendations on economic and\n social questions.\n Human rights comprised the third element in Roosevelt's\n conception of world order. Roosevelt worked to establish a\n new and revolutionary concept in international relations--\n that how a nation treated its own people was no longer its\n own business alone, but the business of the entire\n international community. Thanks to Roosevelt, the United\n Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942, spoke of ``human\n rights'' as a fundamental objective of the struggle against\n Fascism. And it was largely due to his Administration,\n prodded by private American academics and religious leaders,\n that the concept of human rights was firmly embodied in the\n UN Charter.\n Human rights meant, first of all, the rights of peoples to\n self-government and independence. Roosevelt was determined\n that the Second World War should put an end to colonial\n empires and to the centuries-old system of territorial\n aggrandizement by victorious powers.\n Clark Eichelberger, the founder of the American Association\n for the United Nations, has written of a wartime conversation\n with Roosevelt: ``The President said that when he had signed\n the Atlantic Charter, he had said we did not want more\n territory and that he was fool enough to mean it and would\n stand by it in the future.'' Even before the State Department\n developed its proposals for a United Nations organization it\n had at Roosevelt's urging, started work on the idea of an\n international trusteeship system, under which colonial\n territories conquered from the Axis powers (as well as other\n territories) would be administered for the benefit of the\n people and advanced toward independence.\n\n[[Page S12461]]\n\n But Roosevelt's conception of human rights was not limited\n to the self-determination of peoples. He knew too well that\n history is studded with examples of the unholy alliance\n between nationalism and tyranny. And he was convinced, with\n Hitler's campaign of genocide against the Jewish population\n of Europe as the most recent example, that violations of\n human rights could be a prelude to aggression and a cause of\n war. Thus his emphasis on individual rights as a postwar goal\n in the famous ``Four Freedoms'' speech. Hence the\n unprecedented commitment of UN members in the UN Charter to\n take joint and separate action in cooperation with the\n organization to promote ``universal respect for, and\n observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all\n without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.''\n The story is told of a little girl who was asked to name\n her favorite American President and answered: ``Franklin\n Eleanor Roosevelt.'' The little girl was perhaps wise beyond\n her years. Mrs. Roosevelt undoubtedly played a part in\n deepening the President's commitment to human rights both at\n home and abroad. After her husband's death, Eleanor Roosevelt\n became Chairman of the UN's Human Rights Commission, and\n presided over the negotiation of the Universal Declaration of\n Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly in\n 1948.\n Mrs. Roosevelt also launched the UN on the drafting of the\n two basic human rights treaties--the Covenant on Political\n and Civil Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and\n Cultural Rights. But she knew that drafting human rights\n treaties was only part of what was needed: ``It is not just a\n question of getting the Covenants written and accepted,'' she\n used to say. ``It is a question of actually living and\n working in our countries for freedom and justice for each\n human being.''\n\n the world we have\n\n How did it all turn out? It is impossible to do justice to\n 50 years of turbulent and complex events in the brief time\n that remains to me, but let me offer some very general\n observations.\n\n peace and security\n\n As everyone knows, the ambitious concept of collective\n security embodied in the UN Charter quickly collapsed with\n the collapse of the wartime alliance and the outset of the\n Cold War. It proved impossible to negotiate the special\n agreements under Article 43 of the Charter under which the\n Five Permanent Members and others were to make units of their\n armed forces available to the UN Security Council for peace\n enforcement purposes. Roosevelt's concept of collective\n security had to be implemented after his death by a different\n organization--NATO--conceived as a shield against Soviet\n aggression.\n Nevertheless, the United Nations, adjusting to the postwar\n realities, developed non-coercive peacekeeping in place of\n collective security. Despite the Cold War, its men in blue\n helmets played a vital role in containing conflict in such\n far-flung places as Kashmir, Cyprus, the Middle East and the\n Congo. The Security Council and the Secretary-General served\n as useful resources for the peaceful settlement of disputes\n when members had the good sense to make use of them.\n As the Cold War came to an end and the Soviet Union\n collapsed, the United Nations found itself called on to\n respond to an unprecedented number of new conflicts,\n requiring major operations in places like Cambodia, Somalia\n and the former Yugoslavia. Between 1987 and 1993, the UN\n undertook more peacekeeping operations than in all the\n previous year of its history. In these six years the UN went\n from five peacekeeping operations with 10,000 soldiers and an\n annual peacekeeping budget of $200 million, to 18 missions\n with 70,000 troops and a peacekeeping budget of $3 billion.\n These operations placed great strains on the UN's\n operational capacity and even more on the financial resources\n and political will of its members. The UN found itself going\n beyond classical peacekeeping--men in blue helmets patrolling\n borders or otherwise supervising agreements to end\n hostilities. It was now obliged to assume responsibilities\n for the delivery of humanitarian relief and the maintenance\n of order in the midst of civil wars and even outright\n aggression.\n In Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, there were large gaps\n between the ambitous Security Council mandates and the\n capacity of the world organization to carry them out. The\n inevitable result has been disillusionment with the UN,\n particularly in the United States.\n These UN operations, as well as the crisis in Rwanda, have\n called into question a central assumption of collective\n security--the willingness of democratic countries to risk\n casulaties in conflict situations ``anywhere in the world,''\n where they do not see their vital interests as being at\n stake.\n UN peacekeeping missions will continue to be important in\n future years in helping to contain armed conflcit and deliver\n humanitarian aid. We need to explore practical ways to\n improve the training, equipment, financing and command and\n control of these missions. The UN can also improve its\n capacity for preventive diplomacy--working to resolve\n conflcits before they explode into violence.\n But the time has come to recognize what the UN cannot do.\n Although the UN is still capable of traditional peacekeeping,\n it is not capable of effective peace enforcement against\n well-armed opponents who are not prepared to cooperate. This\n was amply demonstrated in Somalia and by UNPROFOR's\n experience in Bosnia.\n For the foreseeable future, the defeat of aggression and\n the enforcement of peace will have to be undertaken by U.S.-\n led ``coalitions of the willing'' as in Desert Storm, or by\n NATO-led coalitions such as IFOR in Bonsia. These are clearly\n different instrumentalities than Roosevelt envisaged 50 years\n ago, but they are not inconsistent with the UN Charter which\n he made possible. That remarkably flexible instrument\n provides in Article 51 for the right of ``individual or\n collective self-defense'' and in Article 53 for the\n utilization by the Security Council of ``regional agencies''\n for ``enforcement action under its authority.''\n The United States and its European allies are now at work\n in building a new security architecture in Europe, which\n includes a new and enlarged NATO, the Partnership for Peace\n program with non-NATO members, a strengthened Organization\n for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and a broad Charter\n to govern NATO-Russian relations. A start has also been made\n at developing more effective regional institutions for the\n peaceful settlement of disputes and peacekeeping in Latin\n America, Africa and Asia, although much more needs to be\n done.\n This is a far cry from Roosevelt's grand design of\n collective peace enforcement by the UN, but it is a pragmatic\n response in the light of political realities. Whether it will\n be enough to keep the peace in a disordered world will depend\n upon constructive behavior by the five Permenent Members of\n the UN Security Council and by regional middle powers, the\n willingness of the European Union and Japan to assure greater\n security responsibilities, and most of all, on skillful\n displomacy, backed by adequate military power, by the United\n States.\n Roosevelt's ambitious hopes for the regulation and control\n of armaments by the United Nations have been frustrated by\n the same political forces that doomed a UN peace enforcement\n system. We have needed to rely, instead, on a decentralized\n system of agreements and institutions, some inside and some\n outside the United Nations. The START I and START II\n agreements, if fully implemented, will greatly reduce the\n number of nuclear weapons, and the renewal of the Non-\n Proliferation Treaty will help to check the spread of nuclear\n weapons. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty just concluded\n could also help reduce the danger of nuclear arms\n development.\n The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is\n playing a critical role in preventing nuclear weapons\n development in Iraq, North Korea, and other parts of the\n world. But still more can be done to strengthen the IAEA, to\n reinforce the export control efforts of the nucler suppliers\n club and to combat the growing black market in nuclear\n materials leaking from the stockpiles of the countries of the\n former Soviet Union.\n The Chemical Weapons Convention, the UN efforts to\n eliminate the scourge of land mines, the Missile Technology\n Control Regime, and the post-Cocom export control\n arrangements to limit the spread of high-tech conventional\n weapons are other elements in the world's still evolving and\n still inadequate efforts to limit the production and spread\n of dangerous weapons.\n Roosevelt saw the U.N. Security Council as the centerpiece\n of international cooperation for peace and security. It is\n increasingly recognized that altering the structure of the\n Council would be desirable if it is to continue to meet its\n responsibilities under the Charter.\n The changes in power relationships in the half century\n since San Francisco have led a number of countries, including\n the United States, to propose adding Germany and Japan as\n Permanent Members, with the creation of three or four\n additional seats to permit more regular representation of\n middle powers from Asia, Africa and Latin America. So far the\n UN committee studying Security Council reform has not been\n able to achieve a consensus on this proposal or any other\n formula for making the Council more reflective of\n contemporary power realities. Whatever emerges must maintain\n the effectiveness of the Security Council as the operational\n arm of the United Nations in responding to challenges to\n international peace and security.\n\n ECONOMIC COOPERATION\n\n Roosevelt's grand design for economic cooperation has stood\n the test of time rather better than his design for peace and\n security, though not without profound changes that he could\n not have foreseen.\n Instead of a system of fixed but adjustable exchange rates\n as conceived at Bretton Woods, we are now in a world of\n floating exchange rates for the world's major currencies,\n occasionally producing serious volatility and exchange rate\n misalignment. The International Monetary Fund was never able\n to assume its intended role as the primary supplier of\n liquidity to the world's developed countries, and it thus\n quickly lost any real influence over their monetary and\n fiscal policies. When the United States suspended gold\n convertibility in 1971, it put the world effectively on a\n dollar standard, and freed itself, at least in the short and\n middle run, from the necessity to balance its international\n accounts.\n Unlike the world anticipated at Bretton Woods, we now live\n in a world in which capital flows have displaced trade flows\n as the\n\n[[Page S12462]]\n\n principal determinant of currency relations; more than $1\n trillion of exchange transactions take place every day, only\n about two percent of which are linked to trade in goods and\n services in our highly sophisticated 24-hour-day global\n capital market, the original IMF concept that members could\n regulate capital movements but not payments for current\n transactions has become totally obsolete.\n Yet Roosevelt was right in his fundamental concept that\n open trade relations require a measure of currency stability,\n and that currency stability in turn requires a degree of\n coordination of the monetary and fiscal policies of the major\n economic powers. So far as the industrialized countries are\n concerned, the efforts for such coordination now take place\n largely outside the Fund through meetings of the Treasury\n Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the Group of Seven\n (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France,\n Italy, Canada and Japan).\n The practical results of efforts toward greater\n international management of the floating rate system have\n been limited so far by an obvious fact of international\n economic life: the governments of the major economic powers\n are not prepared to subordinate their domestic policy\n objectives to the goal of keeping their currencies in some\n agreed international alignment.\n Nevertheless, the search for greater monetary stability\n continues. It has enjoyed a measure of success through more\n limited regional arrangements, the leading example being the\n exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System. We\n shall soon see whether the more ambitious goal of a European\n Monetary Union with a European Central Bank and a European\n common currency will be achieved by the target date of 1999.\n Like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank had a\n very different future than the one envisaged for it by\n Franklin Roosevelt. The Bank's resources were too limited to\n play any significant role in accomplishing its primary\n purpose--the postwar reconstruction of war-devastated Europe.\n That purpose had to be assumed by the Marshall Plan, in which\n the United States pumped $16 billion (the equivalent of $100\n billion in today's dollars) into European economies from 1948\n to 1952, thus laying the foundation for the ``economic\n miracle'' of the Continent in the 1950's and 1960's.\n The Marshall Plan was conditioned on the dismantling of\n intra-European trade barriers and on other concrete measures\n toward European economic unity. It thus led directly to the\n establishment of the Organization for European Economic\n Cooperation and paved the way for the creation of the\n European Common Market and eventually the European Union.\n Some Europeans in the postwar years claimed that an\n ``imperialist'' United States had ``hegemonical'' designs\n on Europe, but it is surely a strange kind of\n ``imperialism'' that urges weak and divided countries to\n unite so that they can become powerful economic\n competitors.\n The strong support that the United States continues to give\n to European efforts at economic and political unity has been\n motivated by its enlightened self-interest in having a strong\n European partner with which to share global economic and\n political responsibilities. In a very real sense, this is a\n contemporary expression of Roosevelt's concept of economic\n solidarity in pursuit of a better world order. The New\n Transatlantic Agenda signed at the U.S.-E.U. Summit in Madrid\n last December may thus be seen as the lineal descendent of\n the Atlantic Charter of 1941.\n If the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were\n unable to play the roles that Roosevelt imagined for them in\n relations between the United States and Western Europe, they\n have nevertheless more than justified their existence in the\n substantial technical aid and financing that they have\n provided to the less developed countries. The World Bank,\n moreover, became a model for the establishment of Regional\n Development Banks in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia.\n And with the creation of the International Development\n Association, the Bank acquired the capability to provide\n large quantities of concessional aid to the world's poorest\n nations.\n More recently, with the end of the Cold War, the Bretton\n Woods institutions have acquired yet another unexpected\n role--that of assisting the former Communist countries of\n Eastern and Central Europe in making the transition to\n successful market economies. Roosevelt's goal of a\n cooperative one-world economic system including Russia, which\n seemed so utopian during the Cold War, has once again become\n a serious policy objective, even if its achievement still\n faces serious obstacles and uncertainties.\n The third instrument of Roosevelt's postwar economic\n design--an institution for the reduction of trade barriers--\n has been realized in the General Agreement on Tariffs and\n Trade, whose eight negotiating rounds have now brought\n average tariff levels in the industrialized countries down to\n four percent, while also subjecting non-tariff barriers such\n as quotas to greater international discipline. The recently\n completed Uruguay Round was the most ambitious trade\n negotiation in history, covering hitherto neglected sectors\n like agriculture, textiles, services and intellectual\n property rights.\n Half a century after FDR's death, a world-wide consensus is\n emerging on the virtues of market economics, open trade, and\n private investment, the basic principles underlying the\n postwar economic institutions. Countries containing some\n three billion people have abandoned economic autarky and\n joined a one-world economy. The Bretton Woods institutions\n and GATT are no longer the preserve of a privileged few, but\n must now respond to the priorities of a larger and more\n diverse constituency. This is both a measure of their success\n and a challenge to their future.\n The Uruguay Round also produced a World Trade Organization\n with an enhanced dispute settlement mechanism. Thus the plans\n for an International Trade Organization that were laid in the\n Roosevelt years have finally been realized--if 50 years late.\n Of course, the WTO still faces formidable difficulties,\n ranging from unfinished business of the Uruguay Round to new\n issues like trade and environment, trade and workers' rights,\n trade and competition policy, and the relation of the WTO to\n the multiplication of regional and subregional trade\n arrangements.\n The comparative success of the Bretton Woods organizations\n and GATT stands in marked contrast to the relative\n ineffectiveness of the central economic institutions of the\n United Nations--the General Assembly and the Economic and\n Social Council. During the Cold War, these institutions were\n hampered by sterile East-West and North-South ideological\n debates.\n Moreover, the UN economic system became a non-system\n afflicted by massive fragmentation of effort, with 16\n Specialized Agencies, 5 Regional Commissions, 6 major\n voluntary funding programs, and 105 intergovernmental bodies\n of one kind or another. The restructuring of this system for\n greater effectiveness is obviously now a high priority.\n Yet it would be wrong to write off the UN economic\n institutions as total failures. The UN Development Program,\n the UN Population Fund, UNICEF, and the UN High Commissioner\n for Refugees, to take just some examples, have made notable\n contributions to the alleviation of poverty and suffering.\n And the UN's recent global conferences--the Rio Earth Summit\n of 1992, the Cairo Population Conference of 1994, the\n Copenhagen Social Summit of 1995, the Beijing Women's\n Conference of the same year, and the Ankara Human\n Settlements Conference of 1996--have not only raised\n public consciousness about urgent global issues, they have\n produced action plans that can guide us to a better world\n in the 21st century if we have the political will to\n implement them with the necessary policies and financial\n resources.\n Despite the considerable economic progress of the postwar\n years, there are still one billion people in the world living\n in abject poverty. Rapid population growth and the continued\n abuse of man's natural environment raise serious questions\n about the habitability of our planet for future generations.\n So the moral of this economic part of the Roosevelt story\n is clear. The institutions he made possible, though flawed in\n many respects, contained the capacity for adaptation to\n changed circumstances and established the habits and\n mechanisms of international cooperation which are essential\n for the resolution of the huge economic problems that still\n lie ahead of us.\n\n human rights\n\n In the area of human rights, as in the other areas of\n Roosevelt's postwar vision, we find ourselves with a half\n century record filled with both accomplishments and\n disappointments.\n One of Roosevelt's priorities that enjoyed rapid\n realization was that of decolonization. In our\n disillusionment with many aspects of the United Nations, we\n sometimes forget that it presided over a process that brought\n over a billion people in nearly one hundred countries to\n political independence. That this happened so swiftly--that\n it happened with so little bloodshed--and that the path to\n self-government was eased by the work of several dozen UN\n agencies engaged in public administration and technical\n assistance--all this owed much to Roosevelt's vision.\n But FDR's commitment was to individual rights as well as to\n the rights of peoples, and here the record is a mixed one. On\n the positive side is the progress that has been made in the\n United Nations in developing clear human rights standards\n that UN members are supposed to respect. The Universal\n Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly\n in 1948 as a result of Mrs. Roosevelt's leadership, gave\n eloquent definition at the beginning to the political and\n economic rights that should be the legacy of every human\n being.\n The Covenants that followed--one on Political and Civil\n Rights and another on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights--\n converted the main ideas of the Declaration into binding\n legal obligations and provided mechanisms to monitor members'\n performances. Other conventions such as those on Genocide,\n Torture, Racial Discrimination, and the Rights of the Child\n added to the rapidly growing body of human rights law that is\n supposed to govern the behavior of nations.\n But as Mrs. Roosevelt insisted at the outset, the key\n question is what the international community will do to\n ensure that these fine words are actually implemented by UN\n members in their own countries. On this the UN started\n slowly. Many UN members, particularly those in the Communist\n world, Asia and Africa, did their best to make sure in the\n early years that the UN's Human Rights Commission was a\n toothless talk shop for talented lawyers and avoided\n criticism of any individual country.\n\n[[Page S12463]]\n\n A modest advance took place in the late 1960's with the\n adoption of Resolution 1503, which provided authority for the\n first time to investigate complaints of ``a consistent\n pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized\n human rights.'' Gradually the Commission lost its inhibition\n against scrutinizing and criticizing individual countries.\n Still later, the Commission began to establish\n ``rapporteurs'' or expert investigators to examine complaints\n in individual countries and in human rights areas such as\n summary executions, religious intolerance, freedom of\n expression, and violence against women.\n After many years of frustrating debate, a UN High\n Commissioner for Human Rights was finally established in\n 1994, with the authority to conduct investigations and bring\n reports of human rights abuses to the attention of UN bodies.\n The High Commissioner is assisted in this work by a small UN\n Center for Human Rights in Geneva, which also provides\n advisory services to governments on how to implement the\n growing body of human rights standards.\n The collapse of Communism removed a core group of UN\n members who could be counted on to oppose all efforts to\n apply human rights standards to individual countries in an\n objective and principled way. Nevertheless there are still\n countries that claim that many ``Western'' concepts of human\n rights are not appropriate for non-Western societies.\n It is significant that this claim was resoundingly rejected\n at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993,\n which reaffirmed that human rights are ``universal'' and must\n be protected by all governments ``regardless of their\n political, economic and cultural systems.''\n As the massive ``ethnic cleansing'' in Bosnia and the\n genocide in Rwanda have reminded us, the UN still lacks any\n way of preventing large-scale violations of human rights or\n even of investigating them adequately as they occur. It will\n continue to lack this capability until UN members agree to\n provide it with the necessary legal authority and financial\n resources.\n In the meantime, we can at least take satisfaction at the\n creation of the War Crimes Tribunals for Yugoslavia and\n Rwanda that are investigating gross violations of\n international humanitarian law after the fact. It remains to\n be seen, of course, whether the principal perpetrators of\n these crimes will ever be brought before these tribunals for\n trial and punishment.\n It is perhaps to be expected that a universal body composed\n of governments could be only partially successful in\n implementing the human rights vision of Franklin and Eleanor\n Roosevelt. Governments are the problem, and their commitment\n to human rights varies enormously in different parts of the\n world. Fortunately, we can also pursue human rights progress\n through regional instruments (such as the European Court of\n Human Rights and the Organization for Security and\n Cooperation in Europe) and through the growing body of non-\n governmental organizations (such as Freedom House, Amnesty\n International and Human Rights Watch) that are making their\n influence increasingly felt at both the international and the\n country level.\n\n conclusions\n\n Let me suggest three conclusions from this undoubtedly\n imperfect effort to examine FDR's concept of world order and\n the extent to which it has been realized today.\n First, it is clear that the institutions of global\n cooperation that we work with today were shaped more by\n Franklin Roosevelt than by any other individual. Indeed, it\n is obvious that without Roosevelt we would have no United\n Nations, no International Monetary Fund and World Bank, no\n WTO or GATT, and no treaties embodying minimum standards of\n human rights or procedures, however weak and tentative, to\n implement them. We all know what these international\n institutions have failed to achieve, but how much more\n dangerous, disagreeable and hopeless our world would be\n without them!\n Second, I suggest that Roosevelt's basic philosophy of\n practical internationalism can still be a guide for mankind\n today, and nowhere more importantly than in the United\n States.\n It is the policy of the Clinton Administration to\n strengthen international institutions for cooperative action\n in peace and security, trade and development and human\n rights, and to make use of these institutions whenever\n possible. This does not mean, in today's imperfect world,\n that the United States will never act except through\n international organizations. Our approach, as President\n Clinton put it in his 1992 election campaign, must rather be,\n ``with others when we can, by ourselves when we must.'' It is\n a practical approach that FDR, that idealist without\n illusions, would surely have understood.\n But there are some in our country who do not believe in\n this kind of practical internationalism. They think that with\n the Cold War behind us there is no need to dedicate\n significant attention or resources to international affairs.\n And there are others who see the UN and other international\n organizations as a threat to American sovereignty and\n advocate unilateral action not as a last but as a first\n resort.\n FDR knew better. He saw as far back as 1941 that the United\n States could not pursue its vital interests or realize its\n highest values through isolation or a policy of acting alone.\n Isolationism and unilateralism, he knew, would not be\n sufficient to protect our fundamental interests--not in\n keeping the peace, not in controlling dangerous weapons, not\n in furthering currency stability or open markets, not in\n promoting fundamental human rights.\n Were he alive today, I am confident he would tell us that\n isolationism and unilateralism would not enable us to cope\n with the new challenges that have emerged since FDR's time--\n the destruction of the global environment, population growth\n and migration, international drug trafficking, international\n crime, and international terrorism.\n Third, I believe this idealist without illusions, this man\n whose spirit overcame the handicap of a devastating\n paralysis, would ask us not to abandon hope in the face of\n our current disappointments, nor seek refuge from our\n frustrations in a cynical passivity, but to meet our daunting\n challenges through creative and cooperative action.\n As he himself put it in the speech he was preparing at the\n time of his death: ``The only limit to our realization of\n tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward\n with strong and active faith.''\n The best way we can honor his memory is to work together\n with that ``strong and active faith'' to strengthen the\n institutions of a better world order which he has bequeathed\n to us.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12463-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SECTION 1102 OF THE COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12463", "S12464", "[{\"name\": \"Ted Stevens\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1004\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1004\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12463", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12463-S12464]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n SECTION 1102 OF THE COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996\n\n Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Senate Oceans and Fisheries\nSubcommittee, I wish to comment on section 1102 of S. 1004, my bill to\nreauthorize the U.S. Coast Guard which was recently passed by both the\nHouse and Senate.\n Section 1102 provides funding for the Prince William Sound Oil Spill\nRecovery Institute [OSRI] located in Cordova, AK. The OSRI was created\nunder section 5001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA '90] to\nidentify the best available techniques, equipment, and material for\ndealing with Arctic and Subarctic oil spills and to assess the effects\nof the Exxon Valdez spill on Prince William Sound's natural resources\nand on the environment, economy, and lifestyle of its residents.\n\n[[Page S12464]]\n\n Section 1102 of S. 1004 amends OPA '90 so that the National Pollution\nFunds Center will make payments directly to the OSRI for these\nactivities, rather than through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration or annual appropriations. The OSRI will conduct its\nmission over the next 10 years using annual interest from $22.5 million\nthat was transferred from the Trans-Alaska Liability Pipeline Fund to\nthe Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The initial payment to OSRI, which\nwill occur within 60 days after the enactment of S. 1004, will include\nthe interest that has accrued from the date of the first transfer of\nfunds from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Fund to the Oil Spill Liability\nTrust Fund pursuant to section 8102(a)(2)(B)(ii) of OPA '90.\n Section 1102 makes other changes to enhance the effectiveness of the\nOSRI. It reduces the size and changes the composition of the OSRI\nAdvisory Board, broadens the OSRI's mission, and allows the OSRI\nAdvisory Board to request a scientific review every 5 years by the\nNational Academy of Sciences to be performed by the Academy in carrying\nout section 7001(b)(2) of OPA '90.\n The conferees intend for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on\nOil Pollution Research (established under section 7001 of OPA '90) to\ncoordinate with the OSRI and the Arctic Research Commission in\ndeveloping and overseeing the national oil spill research plan. By\ninvolving these two entities, the Interagency Committee will be able to\nensure that Arctic and Subarctic prevention and mitigation research\nneeds are being fully identified and met. The Interagency Committee\nshould include relevant recommendations of the OSRI in its reports to\nCongress, and should include OSRI representatives in meetings and other\nactivities regarding oil pollution.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12463", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12463", "S12463", "[{\"name\": \"Spencer Abraham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Judd Gregg\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4278\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4278\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12463", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12463]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL\n\n Mr. ABRAHAM. There is a section in H.R. 4278, the omnibus\nappropriations bill regarding which I am wondering if I could seek some\nclarification from the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice,\nState, and Judiciary Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. My\ninquiry is directed to section 306 of the Commerce, Justice, State,\nJudiciary Title. that provision prohibits the use of any funds\nappropriated in fiscal 1996, fiscal 1997, or thereafter for costs\nrelated to the appointment of special masters in prison conditions\ncases prior to April 26, 1996. That was the date when the Prison\nLitigation Reform Act, which required that such expenses be paid from\nfunds appropriated for the Judiciary, was signed into law.\n First, I was wondering if section 306 is intended to operate as an\nexception to the requirement of the PLRA that expenses, costs, and\ncompensation for special masters be paid by the courts.\n Mr. GREGG. No, it is certainly within the discretion of the courts\nwhether they see a need for a special master and wish to assume the\nresponsibility for such payments.\n Mr. ABRAHAM. From the Senator's response, I surmise that it was not\nhis intention in the omnibus appropriation bill to allow the courts,\ncontrary to 18 U.S.C. 3626(f)(4) as amended by the PLRA, to impose\ncosts, expenses or compensation amounts for special masters appointed\nprior to April 26, 1996 on the parties to the litigation?\n Mr. GREGG. No, we did not intend to override any portion of the PLRA\nor impose such costs on anybody else.\n Mr. ABRAHAM. Finally, is it envisioned under the omnibus\nappropriation bill that special masters originally appointed before and\nsubsequently reappointed after April 26, 1996 would be treated in the\nsame fashion as those appointed after that date?\n Mr. GREGG. That is correct.\n Mr. ABRAHAM. Thus if a court wants to retain a special master\nappointed before that date and pay that individual, all it need do is\nreappoint that person consistent with the PLRA.\n Mr. GREGG. Yes, it is my understanding that the interpretation of my\ncolleague from Michigan of the PLRA is consistent with the omnibus\nappropriation bill.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12464-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "ANNIVERSARY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12464", "S12464", "[{\"name\": \"John Ashcroft\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12464", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12464]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n ANNIVERSARY\n\n Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of\nAmerica. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families\ncontribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples\nmarried today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it\nis both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the\ncommitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating\nsuccessfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity.\nThese characteristics make our country strong.\n For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Bill and Alice\nWynkoop of Aldrich, Missouri who on Saturday, October 26, 1996 will\ncelebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look\nforward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Bill and\nAlice's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage\ndeserves to be saluted and recognized.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12464-3", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "CONGRATULATIONS TO LAWRENCE SMITHSON CELEBRATING HIS 100TH BIRTHDAY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "CELEBRATING", "S12464", "S12464", "[{\"name\": \"John Ashcroft\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12464", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12464]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n CONGRATULATIONS TO LAWRENCE SMITHSON CELEBRATING HIS 100TH BIRTHDAY\n\n Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my\ncolleagues to join me in congratulating Lawrence Smithson of Chilhowee,\nMissouri who celebrated his 100th birthday on Wednesday, October 16,\n1996. Lawrence is a truly remarkable individual. He has witnessed many\nof the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world\nhas ever known. The longevity of his life has meant much more, however,\nto the many relatives and friends whose lives he has touched over the\nlast 100 years.\n Lawrence's celebration of 100 years of life is a testament to me and\nall Missourians. His achievements are significant and deserve to be\nrecognized. I would like to join Lawrence's many friends and relatives\nin wishing him health and happiness in the future.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12464-4", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HEARTFELT THANKS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12464", "S12464", "[{\"name\": \"Sheila Frahm\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12464", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12464]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HEARTFELT THANKS\n\n Mrs. FRAHM. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to\nextend my heartfelt thanks to Chairman Murkowski, Senator Johnston, and\ntheir respective staffs on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee\nfor including the designation of Nicodemus, KS, as a national historic\nsite in the omnibus parks bill.\n During the 1870's, Kansas was the scene of a great migration of\nsouthern blacks seeking their fortune in what some African-American\nleaders described as the ``Promised Land.'' One of the most important\nsettlements founded during that time was Nicodemus. From sod\n``burrows'' carved out of the prairie by the original ``colonists,''\nNicodemus flourished into a leading center of black culture and society\nthrough the turn of the century.\n Today, a cluster of five buildings is all that remains of that once\nvibrant community. National historic landmark status has not halted the\ngradual decay of this monument to the struggle of African-Americans for\nfreedom and equality. In fact, in its report entitled ``Nicodemus,\nKansas Special Resource Study,'' the National Park Service indicated\nthat ``[i]f Nicodemus is not protected and preserved by a public or\nprivate entity, it seems inevitable that the historic structures will\ncontinue to deteriorate and eventually be razed.'' It was that finding\nthat prompted Senator Dole's original legislation granting the town of\nNicodemus, KS, national historic site status.\n Senators Dole and Kassebaum and Representative Roberts pursued\nhistoric site status for Nicodemus for years. As Kansans, they\nrecognized that this little-known oasis of hope for blacks on the long\nroad to true emancipation was on the verge of being lost forever to the\nravages of time. Progress, however, was agonizingly slow. Familiar as I\nwas with Nicodemus--it is located in my old Kansas senate district--I\nvowed to continue the fight. Ably assisted by Janet Sena, whom I was\nlucky enough to briefly inherit from Senator Dole, we piggybacked our\nfreestanding bill onto the larger omnibus parks package to get it\nthrough the Senate and succeeded in incorporating it into the\nconference report to assure passage in the House.\n Now, after a long and arduous struggle, the fight is won and we have\ntaken the essential step toward saving this unique piece of American\nhistory. Descendants of the original Nicodemus settlers are convinced\nthat historic site status will give the town the prestige necessary to\nraise preservation funds. I agree. For them, and for myself, let me\nonce again offer my thanks to all who made the inclusion of Nicodemus\npossible.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12464-5", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "OMNIBUS PARKS BILL", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12464", "S12465", "[{\"name\": \"Bob Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1174\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1174\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12464", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12464-S12465]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n OMNIBUS PARKS BILL\n\n Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the\nOmnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act, which was adopted\nunanimously by the Senate. This legislation contains numerous\nprovisions affecting 41 States to preserve and protect our Nation's\nscenic rivers and historic land areas. I am pleased that, after many\ndays of negotiations, we have reached agreement on this important\nenvironmental legislation.\n Included in this comprehensive package is legislation that Senator\nGregg and I introduced on August 10, 1995, to designate the Lamprey\nRiver in New Hampshire as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers\nSystem. The Lamprey Wild and Scenic River Act, S. 1174, will designate\nan 11.5-mile segment of the Lamprey River as wild and scenic. Following\nintroduction, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a\nhearing on the Lamprey bill, which was later approved unanimously by\nthe committee.\n The history of this legislation goes back almost 5 years when Senator\nRudman and I introduced the Lamprey River study bill in February 1991,\nwhich was signed into law by President Bush later that year. Once the\nNational Park Service determined the\n\n[[Page S12465]]\n\nLamprey River's eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers\nSystem, a local advisory committee was formed to work with local\ncommunities, landowners, the National Park Service, and New Hampshire's\nEnvironment Department in preparing a comprehensive management plan.\nThis management plan was completed in January 1995.\n The Lamprey River management plan was subsequently endorsed by the\nadvisory committee as well as the local governments affected by this\ndesignation. The primary criteria for my sponsorship of this\nlegislation was the support of the local communities. After the towns\nof Lee, Durham, and Newmarket all voted in favor of this designation,\nit received my enthusiastic support.\n The Lamprey River is well deserving of this designation for a number\nof reasons. Not only is the river listed on the 1982 National Park\nService's inventory of outstanding rivers, but it has almost been\nrecognized by the State of New Hampshire as the ``most important\ncoastal river for anadromous fish in the State.'' Herring, shad, and\nsalmon are among the anadromous species found in the river. In fact,\nNew Hampshire fishing maps describe the Lamprey as ``a truly\nexceptional river offering a vast variety of fishing. It contains every\ntype of stream and river fish you could expect to find in New\nEngland.''\n The Lamprey is approximately 60 miles in length and serves as the\nmajor tributary for the Great Bay, which is part of the National\nEstuarine Research Reserve System. The Great Bay Refuge is also nearby,\nwhich was established several years ago following the closure of Pease\nAir Force Base. The preservation of the Lamprey is a significant\ncomponent to protecting this entire ecosystem.\n The 11.5-mile segment, as proposed by our legislation, has been the\nfocus of local protection efforts for many years. The towns of Lee,\nDurham, and Newmarket, local conservationists, the State government, as\nwell as the congressional delegation have all come together in support\nof this legislation. I believe the management philosophy adopted by the\nadvisory committee best articulates our goals for this legislation: ``*\n* * management of the river must strike a balance among desires to\nprotect the river as an ecosystem, maintain the river for legitimate\ncommunity use, and protect the interests and property rights of those\nwho own its shorelands.''\n In conclusion, Mr. President, I congratulate Senate majority leader\nLott, Senator Murkowski and others in negotiating an agreement on this\ncomprehensive legislation. In addition, I commend all of the members of\nthe Lamprey River Advisory Committee, especially Sharon Meeker of Lee,\nwho served as committee chair, Judith Spang of Durham, and Richard\nWellington of Lee. All have worked very hard on the Lamprey River\nlegislation and have traveled to Washington to testify on its behalf. I\nam extremely pleased that, at last, the fruits of their labor will be\nrewarded with the adoption of the omnibus parks bill--one of the most\nsignificant environmental accomplishments of the 104th\nCongress.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12464", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "REGARDING S. RES. 304", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12464", "S12464", "[{\"name\": \"Trent Lott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"304\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"304\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"304\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12464", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Page S12464]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n REGARDING S. RES. 304\n\n Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to make some clarifying\nremarks regarding the resolution recently agreed to by the Senate, S.\nRes. 304. This resolution will approve certain regulations to implement\nprovisions of the Congressional Accountability Act. These regulations\nare approved to the extent they are consistent with the Congressional\nAccountability Act. In that regard, section 220(c)(3) of that act\nallows for judicial review of negotiability issues, although it limits\nwho may seek review. Also, the term ``any matter'' under section\n220(c)(1) of that act clearly includes any and all petitions and other\nsubmissions submitted to the board under section 220(c)(1) of the act.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12465", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "HUMAN TISSUES SAFETY ACT OF 1996", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12465", "S12466", "[{\"name\": \"Ron Wyden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2195\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"2195\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12465", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12465-S12466]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n HUMAN TISSUES SAFETY ACT OF 1996\n\n Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I inadvertently neglected to ask\nthat a copy of legislation I introduced with Senators Dodd and Simon be\nprinted in the October 3, 1996, Congressional Record.\n I request that this bill, the Human Tissues Safety Act of 1996, be\nprinted in the Congressional Record to be dated October 21, 1996.\n The bill follows:\n\n S. 2195\n\n Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of\n the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n\n SECTION 1. HUMAN TISSUE.\n\n (a) In General.--Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and\n Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end\n the following:\n ``(hh)(1) The term `human tissue' means a collection of\n similar human cells which--\n ``(A) is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,\n mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease or\n condition in a human or for reproduction;\n ``(B) achieves its primary intended purpose through repair\n or replacement of bodily tissue by structural support or\n cellular function;\n ``(C) may have been propagated or otherwise processed\n before use;\n ``(D) may be combined with substances that are safe under\n conditions of intended use and not intended to provide a\n therapeutic effect; and\n ``(E) includes reproductive tissue, demineralized bone,\n heart valves, dura mater, and manipulated autologous cells.\n ``(2) The term `human tissue' does not include vascularized\n human organs, gene therapy, blood, soluble blood components,\n milk, or products made by combining human tissue with\n biomaterials.\n ``(3) Human tissue is not a drug, biological product, or\n device unless reclassified by the Secretary pursuant to\n section 352A of the Public Health Service Act.''\n (b) Regulation of Human Tissue.--Subpart 1 of part F of\n title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 et\n seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following section:\n\n ``regulation of human tissue\n\n ``Sec. 352A. (a) Subject to Regulation.--\n ``(1) In general.--Human tissue shall be subject to\n regulation under this section only if the Secretary publishes\n a finding in the Federal Register, after a hearing before the\n Commissioner, that voluntary regulation under generally\n accepted scientific standards is inadequate to protect the\n public health with respect to any particular type of human\n tissue or human tissue generally.\n ``(2) Exception.--Human tissue shall not be subject to\n regulation as a drug, biological product, or device unless it\n is reclassified under subsection (f).\n ``(b) Registration.--\n ``(1) In general.--Any person subject to regulation under\n this section who recovers, processes, stores, or distributes\n human tissue for transplantation or implantation in the\n United States shall register in accordance with the\n registration procedures established for drugs under section\n 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Such\n registration shall contain the name of the person, the\n location of its facilities, a list of the types of human\n tissue recovered, processed, stored, or distributed by such\n person, and a brief description of the basic method or\n methods of processing of such tissue.\n ``(2) Authorized activities.--A person registered in\n accordance with paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be\n authorized to conduct human tissue recovery, processing,\n storage, and distribution activities as identified in the\n applicable registration unless--\n ``(A)(i) the Secretary determines, upon inspection, that\n such person fails to meet applicable operating standards\n under subsection (c);\n ``(ii) the Secretary notifies such person of a\n determination under clause (i), advises the person of the\n steps necessary to meet such standards, and provides the\n person with a reasonable opportunity to establish compliance\n with the standards;\n ``(iii) the Secretary determines, after an opportunity for\n an informal hearing, that the person has failed to establish\n compliance as provided for in clause (ii) within the\n applicable period and such failure constitutes a threat to\n the public health; and\n ``(iv) the Secretary suspends or revokes the authority to\n conduct such activities;\n ``(B) the Secretary determines, after an opportunity for an\n informal hearing, that such person has failed to comply with\n any patient registry or other retrospective patient data\n requirement, and the Secretary suspends or revokes the\n authority to conduct such activities; or\n ``(C) the Secretary determines that such person presents an\n immediate or substantial danger to the public health, and the\n Secretary suspends or revokes the authority to conduct such\n activities, in which case an informal hearing shall be\n conducted within 5 business days of the date of such\n suspension or revocation.\n ``(c) Operating Standards.--The Secretary may establish,\n after notice and opportunity for comment, operating standards\n for human tissue that shall be limited to the following\n general requirements for the recovery, processing, storage,\n and shipment of human tissue.\n ``(1) Requirements for infection control designed to\n prevent transmission of disease.\n ``(2) Requirements for processing practices that assure the\n safety of, and prevent damage to, human tissue.\n ``(3) Requirements for labeling and recordkeeping to\n identify the type of tissue and any added foreign substance\n and to permit tracing.\n ``(d) Labeling and Advertising.--Statements made in\n labeling, advertising or promotional materials regarding\n clinical benefit with respect to human tissue shall consist\n only of accurate and balanced representations that are\n consistent with sound scientific information, including\n current data from a registry required or established under\n subsection (e), if available.\n ``(e) Registry.--A person registered under subsection (b)\n may be required by the Secretary to maintain a patient\n registry or meet other retrospective patient data\n requirements if, after notice and an opportunity for comment,\n the Secretary determines that such tissue has been\n commercially available within the United States for a period\n of less than 5 years and that such data requirement is\n necessary to protect the public health.\n ``(f) Reclassifications.--\n ``(1) Human tissue.--The Secretary may reclassify a\n particular type of human tissue as\n\n[[Page S12466]]\n\n a drug, biological product or device if, after notice and an\n opportunity for comment, the Secretary determines that--\n ``(A) with respect to the particular type of human tissue--\n ``(i) the tissue is subject to a patient registry or other\n retrospective data requirement under which the collection of\n information has been required for at least 5 years (or such\n other time period as agreed to by the Secretary and the\n registered person); and\n ``(ii) the information received from such patient registry\n or other retrospective data requirement is insufficient to\n confirm the safety and clinical benefit from the use of such\n tissue; or\n ``(B) a particular type of human tissue should be\n reclassified because it presents an imminent hazard to public\n health.\n ``(2) Upon secretarial action.--The Secretary may\n reclassify a human drug, biological product or medical device\n as human tissue if the Secretary determines, after notice and\n an opportunity for comment, that such previous classification\n is not necessary to protect public health.\n ``(3) Upon petition.--The Secretary may reclassify a drug,\n biological product, medical device, or human tissue upon the\n petition of the sponsor of such drug, biological product or\n device, or the registered person for such human tissue, if,\n after notice and an opportunity to comment, the Secretary\n finds that such reclassification is consistent with the\n protection of public health.\n ``(g) Enforcement.--\n ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that any\n person has violated any provision of this section or any\n regulations promulgated under this section, and the Secretary\n determines that the violation constitutes a significant risk\n to the public health, the Secretary may issue an order that\n such person cease distribution of human tissue, or that human\n tissue recovered, processed, stored or distributed by such\n person be retained, recalled, or destroyed. After receipt of\n such an order, the person in possession of the human tissue\n shall not distribute or dispose of the human tissue in any\n manner inconsistent with the provisions of the order.\n ``(2) Hearing.--A person subject to the order under\n paragraph (1) may obtain an informal hearing regarding the\n order if the person requests such a hearing not later than 5\n days after receiving the order. If the person does make such\n a request within such period, the Secretary shall conduct the\n hearing within 30 days after receiving the request and\n shall issue an order not later than 15 days after the\n hearing is conducted. Such order shall be considered a\n final order of the Secretary.\n ``(h) Inspection.--Each person registered under subsection\n (b) shall be subject to inspection under section 704 of the\n Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Secretary may, with\n the concurrence of the registered person, authorize an\n inspection be conducted by any person specifically accredited\n by the Secretary to conduct such inspection under section 712\n of such Act.\n ``(i) Cord Blood.--\n ``(1) In general.--This section (including provisions\n regarding reclassification) shall apply with respect to cord\n blood to the same extent and in the same manner as this\n section applies with respect to human tissue.\n ``(2) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement this\n section with respect to cord blood under regulations\n promulgated after notice and opportunity to comment.\n ``(j) Eyes.--The Secretary shall not regulate eyes until\n such time as the Secretary makes a finding under this section\n that voluntary regulation under generally accepted standards\n is inadequate to protect the public health.''.\n (c) Transition.--The requirements of the interim\n regulation, promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human\n Services on December 11, 1993, shall remain in effect until\n amended or withdrawn by the Secretary. Any modifications to\n such regulations after the date of the enactment of this Act\n are subject to this Act and the amendments made by this Act.\n (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (c)\n shall take effect on June 30, 1997.\n (e) Conforming Amendments.--\n (1) Adulteration provision.--Section 501 of the Federal\n Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351) is amended--\n (A) in the first sentence by striking ``drug or device''\n and inserting ``drug, device or human tissue''; and\n (B) by adding at the end thereof the following:\n ``(j) if it is human tissue and it is recovered, processed,\n stored, or distributed by--\n ``(1) a registered person under section 352A of the Public\n Health Service Act whose failure to comply with standards\n constitutes a threat to public health; or\n ``(2) a person who is required under such section to\n register but has failed to do so.''.\n (2) Misbranding provisions.--Section 502 of the Federal\n Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is amended:\n (A) in the section heading, by striking ``MISBRANDED DRUGS\n AND DEVICES'' and inserting the following: ``MISBRANDED\n DRUGS, DEVICES, AND HUMAN TISSUE''; and\n (B) in the first sentence, by striking ``drug or device''\n and inserting ``drug, device or human tissue''.\n (3) Prohibited acts.--Section 301 of the Federal Food,\n Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding\n at the end thereof the following:\n ``(v) The adulteration or misbranding of any human\n tissue.''.\n (4) Seizure.--Section 304 of the Federal Food, Drug, and\n Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334) is amended\n (A) in subsection (a)(2)(D), by inserting ``or human\n tissue'' after ``device''; and\n (B) in the first sentence of subsection (d)(1), by striking\n ``or cosmetic'' and inserting ``cosmetic, or human tissue''.\n (5) Inspection.--Section 704(a)(1) of the Federal Food,\n Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 374(a)(1)) is amended--\n (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``human tissue,''\n after ``device,'' each place such appears; and\n (B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``human tissue,''\n after ``drugs,'' each place such appears.\n\n ____________________"], ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12466", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE NEED FOR BALLAST MANAGEMENT--H.R. 4283", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12466", "S12467", "[{\"name\": \"John H. Glenn Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Larry Pressler\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3217\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"3217\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4283\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4283\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4283\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12466", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12466-S12467]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n THE NEED FOR BALLAST MANAGEMENT--H.R. 4283\n\n Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his\nefforts in responding to the urgent national need for ballast\nmanagement to prevent unintentional introduction of nonnative species\ninto U.S. waters. As you know, some Senators raised concerns about the\ninitial House-passed version of the National Invasive Species Act [H.R.\n3217] because it does not give assurance that onerous requirements will\nnot be imposed upon vessels that exercise the safety exemption from\nnational ballast exchange requirements. This version, [H.R. 4283],\nrectifies that problem. The Great Lakes Program which already leaves\nsole discretion over safety to the ship master, and already requires\nalternatives if high seas exchange is not possible, will not be\naffected by this amendment. I ask the Senator, is it his opinion that\nthe Coast Guard will actively seek to identify alternatives of which\nvessels may avail themselves in other coastal regions, and will it\nrequest vessels to conduct these alternative precautions on a voluntary\nbasis in the new national program?\n Mr. PRESSLER. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce,\nScience and Transportation that has jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast\nGuard, I would expect the Coast Guard to actively seek alternatives\napplicable to other regions, routinely identify those alternatives to\nballast exchange for vessels which use the safety exemption, and\nencourage their use prior to discharging unexchanged water in the port\nof call.\n Mr. GLENN. I also ask the Senator, if he believes that the Coast\nGuard will keep careful records regarding the extent to which the\nsafety exemption is utilized, under what circumstances, and the extent\nto which vessels attempt in good faith to use alternatives that may be\nidentified?\n Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, I expect the Coast Guard to include each of those\nitems in its reporting requirements, and to include a careful\nassessment of those matters in its report to Congress so that Congress\ncan make decisions regarding the impact of this exemption and the need\nfor revision of the law.\n Mr. GLENN. As I mentioned, the Great Lakes Program currently requires\nalternatives to ballast exchange if high seas exchange is not possible\ndue to safety concerns. While these alternatives are not overly\nonerous, I can understand industry's concern in other regions where the\nalternatives have not yet been developed.\n A cooperative relationship between the Committee of Environment and\nPublic Works at the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation\nis crucial to the passage of this legislation and its effective\nimplementation. I hope that these two Committees that share\njurisdiction over this issue continue to work together to evaluate\nprogress under the National Invasive Species Act.\n Mr. PRESSLER. I look forward to a continued cooperative relationship\nbetween the two committees as well as with the bill author and\ncosponsors.\n Mr. GLENN. H.R. 4283 includes an exemption from the National Ballast\nManagement Program for crude oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade.\nWhile the majority of this trade is conducted between Hawaii and\nAlaska, the risk to receiving waters of ballast water from these\nvessels may be significant. As the Senator knows, there is concern that\nfish pathogens may have been transported to Alaskan waters via this\ntrade. I would hope that every effort will be made to study the\nbaseline conditions of the Prince William Sound ecosystem to assure\nthat invasive species problems in fact have\n\n[[Page S12467]]\n\nnot been arising from this trade, and will not arise in the future.\n Mr. PRESSLER. I join the Senator in urging such a study.\n\n ____________________"]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 52647, "expanded_columns": [], "expandable_columns": [], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "units": {}, "query": {"sql": "select granule_id, date, congress, session, volume, issue, title, chamber, granule_class, sub_granule_class, page_start, page_end, speakers, bills, citation, full_text from congressional_record where \"congress\" = :p0 order by date desc limit 101", "params": {"p0": "104"}}, "facet_results": {"chamber": {"name": "chamber", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104", "results": [{"value": "HOUSE", "label": "HOUSE", "count": 32573, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&chamber=HOUSE", "selected": false}, {"value": "SENATE", "label": "SENATE", "count": 19739, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&chamber=SENATE", "selected": false}, {"value": "", "label": "", "count": 335, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&chamber=", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "granule_class": {"name": "granule_class", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104", "results": [{"value": "HOUSE", "label": "HOUSE", "count": 21914, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&granule_class=HOUSE", "selected": false}, {"value": "SENATE", "label": "SENATE", "count": 18689, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&granule_class=SENATE", "selected": false}, {"value": "EXTENSIONS", "label": "EXTENSIONS", "count": 9873, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&granule_class=EXTENSIONS", "selected": false}, {"value": "DAILYDIGEST", "label": "DAILYDIGEST", "count": 2165, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&granule_class=DAILYDIGEST", "selected": false}, {"value": "", "label": "", "count": 6, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&granule_class=", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "congress": {"name": "congress", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104", "results": [{"value": 104, "label": 104, "count": 52647, "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}}, "suggested_facets": [{"name": "session", "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&_facet=session"}, {"name": "date", "type": "date", "toggle_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&_facet_date=date"}], "next": "1996-10-21,CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12466", "next_url": "https://www.pawtectors.org/openregs/congressional_record.json?congress=104&_next=1996-10-21%2CCREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12466&_sort_desc=date", "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 2736.618960974738, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}