E 916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 2, 1995

I join Governor Allen and all of Virginia in

saluting Andy.

TRIBUTE TO RAY OJEDA

f

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to

pay tribute to Ray Ojeda, a good friend and

the outgoing mayor of San Fernando. Under

Ray’s intelligent and firm leadership, San Fernando has strengthened its ties to the local

business community, paving the way for better

economic times in the city.

Ray also took charge in the aftermath of the

Northridge earthquake, which destroyed or

damaged many buildings in San Fernando.

The mayor provided a steady hand, and

worked hard to get San Fernando its fair

share of State and Federal assistance.

A resident of San Fernando for 18 years,

Ray epitomizes the definition of public servant.

Prior to his election to the City Council in

1992, Ray served as a planning commissioner

and as a member of the Kiwanis Club. In his

public role he has always emphasized the importance of community pride, a message that

has particular application in San Fernando,

where a few years ago gangs and graffiti were

all too common. The recent turnaround is a

testimony to Ray’s efforts.

With two children and several grandchildren,

along with a passion for golf and hunting, Ray

leads an active life outside politics. In addition,

Ray is the owner of Ray’s Window Coverings

in San Fernando.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me

in saluting Ray Ojeda, businessman/politician/

father/grandfather, who has worked tirelessly

on behalf of San Fernando. The residents are

indeed lucky to have had him as mayor, and

to continue to have him on the city council.

EMMANUEL COLLEGE OF BOSTON

75TH ANNIVERSARY OF

f

HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this moment to

recognize Emmanuel College of Boston on its

75th anniversary. Emmanuel College was

founded in 1919 by Sister Helen Madeleine

Ingraham and the Sisters of Notre Dame.

As the oldest women’s Catholic college in

New England, Emmanuel College’s mission

has been one of providing women with an outstanding liberal arts education rooted in

Catholic heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the students, administrators, faculty, and alumnae of Emmanuel

College a happy 75th anniversary and continued success in the future.

TRIBUTE TO NANCY DALY

HON. GEORGE MILLER OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last

week I was honored to address the Second

Annual Service to Children Awards Dinner in

Los Angeles, and to present to Nancy Daly

the Lifetime Service Award.

Ms. Daly, the founder of United Friends of

the Children, is one of the most remarkable,

effective and persistent advocates I have ever

known, and she richly deserves this great

honor. I would like to share my remarks with

the Members of the House.

TRIBUTE TO NANCY DALY

I am very honored to make some remarks

this evening, because Nancy Daly is a woman

who sends a powerful message—to Los Angeles and to America—about what it means to

dedicate ourselves to children. And I speak

as a member of a profession where proclaiming your concern about children is a requirement of membership.

My path and Nancy’s have crossed many

times, including our service together on the

National Commission on Children with Senator Jay Rockefeller, where she was the

leading proponent for family preservation

programs. But we worked on the same issues

for years before we ever met.

Fifteen years ago, after years of investigations and hearings, Congress enacted my bill

to reform the national foster care and adoption laws, P.L. 96–272.

It was at that same time that Nancy went

out to visit MacLaren Children’s Center,

never dreaming that visit would change her

life’s work or the lives of so many others in

this city. While I was massaging my colleagues in Congress to vote for my bill,

Nancy was shampooing the heads of foster

kids at MacLaren, and deciding that this

system needed change, and that she was the

one to change it.

It was in that same year that Nancy founded United Friends of the Children, that stunningly successful volunteer organization

working with the abandoned and neglected

children of MacLaren, working to improve

the children’s resources, their educational

development, supporting college tuition programs and providing critical transitional

help from foster care to independence

through creation of low cost housing for

those emancipated from the system.

Throughout the 1980s, Nancy became one of

the premier advocates for family preservation programs—efforts designed by agencies

and the courts to provide intensive service to

at-risk families to help them work through

serious problems rather than fragmenting, at

great cost to the children and often to the

state as well. She has mobilized the formidable resources of the entertainment community on behalf of children’s issues, and is a

vigorous promoter of programs to assure

that children have proper legal representation in the court system when critical decisions are being made about their placements,

their rights and their futures. And she

played the central role in the creation of the

Los Angeles Department of Children and

Youth to give young people an advocate in

government even though they are too young

to have a voice in its management.

Not bad for a volunteer.

As Nancy was creating and participating in

these, and many more activities, I served as

the first chairman of the Select Committee

on Children, Youth and Families in the Congress, a panel created by Tip O’Neill at my

urging because children simply were not receiving the special attention they merited in

federal policy. Oh, sure there were educational laws and health laws, foster care

laws and child care laws: but no one was

looking out for the kids, not for the program

or the bureaucracy or the politics: just the

kids.

And that Select Committee did what it was

supposed to do. We raised the visibility of

children, we held up a mirror to the Congress

and said, ‘‘Like ’em or not, these are America’s kids.’’ We travelled throughout this

country for eight years, putting children on

the Congress’ agenda: children with disabilities, children without homes, children of violence, children with AIDS, children in

gangs, children without food, children in

poverty. America’s future. America’s ‘‘most

precious resource.’’ The subject of every

politician’s favorite photo op.

And I think many in Congress were truly

shocked by what they saw: the millions of

children, about to inherit this nation, who

were growing up in Third World conditions,

abused, hungry, violent, with little or no investment in society or even in their own futures.

The mission of the Select Committee, you

see, wasn’t to score political points, but—

perhaps naively—to depoliticize children in

the political debate: to make it clear to conservative Republicans, Yellow Dog Democrats and Bleeding Heart liberals alike that

you can’t lecture America’s children into

being good citizens, or productive workers or

responsible adults if you ignore their most

basic needs in their formative years.

Children really don’t care if you’re liberal

or conservative, a hard heart or a bleeding

heart. They don’t care if you’re a volunteer,

a case worker, a lawyer, or a congressman.

They know when they’re hurting, when

they’re scared, when they’re hungry, when

they’re confused, and all they want to know

is, ‘‘Are you going to be there for me?’’

And, I suppose, that is what is so terribly

tragic about what is going on in Washington

today. A new political leadership in Congress, which shows no evidence at all of understanding children or public policy towards children, is putting a torch to most of

what Nancy and I, and many others in this

room and across America, have spent our

lives doing. And don’t get me wrong: I have

no particular concern if someone wants to

rewrite the nutrition, child care, family violence, foster care, adoption laws I wrote in

the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s—if they want to make

them better.

But let’s not kid anyone: the new congressional leadership isn’t about improving the

system, they are about destroying it, and the

children be damned.

How else do you explain proposals to throw

infants off income assistance because of the

mistakes of their mothers?

How else do you explain $7 billion in nutrition cuts—exposing pregnant women,

newborns and school children to serious deficiencies?

How else do you explain a punitive ‘‘welfare reform’’ plan that puts no one to work,

but deprives five million people of basic assistance—300,000 right here in Los Angeles?

How else do you explain dissembling our

foster care reforms with the result that children will be housed in unlicensed homes,

with few if any services to them or their parents, with no legal representation or hopes

for permanent homes?

I remember well in the early ’80s when

David Stockman came before the Budget

Committee and I asked him how, in light of

the uncontroverted evidence that the WIC

program saved babies lives and money, too,

he could justify slashing that program. And