S5864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

group of students and they all respect her as

an educator and as a person.

Students who take Becky Ekeland’s English or yearbook classes grow in many ways.

I’ve observed students who have become

more confident and able through their interviewing processes in yearbook or through

the 9th grade I-search paper; many of the

students also develop a knowledge and respect for discipline, creativity, and the realities of deadlines. More importantly, students

know that it is ok to ask any question because every question in Becky’s eyes is important and well worth the time. This attitude opens up excellent lines for communication between student and teacher. These

learned qualities carry over to the other academic areas and help develop a much more

successful student. She helps those who

would otherwise feel uncomfortable in an

English class feel ok about being there and

proud of their individual progress. Becky

also works with our gifted coordinator to

bring in enrichment and challenges, ensuring

the extra added opportunities for those students who excel in her classroom.

Becky is also the yearbook director. Here

too, she is dedicated, very organized, and

willing to go out of her way to help her yearbook staff be the best they can be. BHS

Yearbook has taken top honors at many

state competitions. This excellent record is a

direct result of Becky’s dedication and desire

to do her best always.

As a person, Becky is self-motivated, conscientious, responsible, dependable, a professional individual, always willing to give 110%

while at work; another 110% worth of quality

time when at home with her family.

I believe Becky is an individual who will

continually look for new ways to stimulate

interest for her students. She is one who is

always open to change and willing to share

and become part of educational group related efforts.

In my opinion, Becky is academically and

personally superior. Her interest and determination will guarantee her continued success and keep her on the cutting edge of up

and coming programs for her kids.

I sincerely believe Becky Ekeland is a

most worthy candidate for Teacher of the

Year. Any school anywhere would be proud

to have her on staff. I highly recommend

Becky Ekeland for South Dakota Teacher of

the Year.

Sincerely,

LINDA K.S. PUMINGTON,

Counselor.

BROOKINGS HIGH SCHOOL,

Brookings, SD., August 10, 1994.

DEAR SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER OF THE YEAR

COMMITTEE: It is with great pleasure that I

am writing this letter of support for Mrs.

Becky Ekeland’s nomination for South Dakota Teacher of the Year. Stating it simply,

she is an outstanding educator.

I first became acquainted with Becky over

a decade ago when she moved to Brookings.

I was the assistant principal at Brookings

Middle School at the time and Becky was

employed as a substitute teacher. At the

time of her hiring as an English teacher at

Brookings High School, my only regret was

that we did not have an opening for her at

Brookings Middle School where I worked.

Through her substitute teaching, she had

proven to us that she was a very capable

teacher. One year ago when I became principal at Brookings High School, I was fortunate to again work with Becky. I have come

to appreciate even more than before, the

many fine qualities that Becky possesses.

Becky is first and foremost a caring person

who places a high priority on helping others.

As a result of this, she establishes relationships with students that serve to increase

their motivation, confidence, and achievement. Some specific examples of Becky’s excellence as an educator are the outstanding

results she has obtained as Brookings High

Yearbook advisor, the quality of her preparation for classroom instruction, and her ability and willingness to work with special

needs students.

In Becky’s 10 years as yearbook advisor,

she has developed an outstanding program,

with our school’s yearbook receiving statewide recognition on a consistent basis. Students are given much responsibility and control over the work with Becky serving a role

of facilitator and advisor to them. In this capacity, Becky demonstrates the talent of

bringing students to the realization of their

full potential.

Becky has always demonstrated strong

classroom organizational skills and a commitment to instruction that causes students

to be actively engaged in learning through

ways that are meaningful to them. She regularly updates her curriculum so that the particular interests and needs of each group of

students are addressed.

In recent years, as we have moved in the

direction of integrating special needs students into the regular education classroom,

Becky has been a leader, showing both a

willingness and an interest in working together with special education staff and students. Repeatedly, she has gone beyond what

is expected of her to provide for the needs of

students. She truly believes that all students

can learn in her classroom.

Becky is, without a doubt, one of South

Dakota’s finest educators. It is without qualification that I recommend Becky Ekeland

for South Dakota Teacher of the Year.

Sincerely,

DOUG BESTE,

Principal.

BROOKINGS, SD.

To whom it may concern:

It is with great pleasure that I begin this

letter, because as I think back upon the six

years I have known Rebecca Ekeland I realize how much she has given me, and I am

thrilled that she is finally being recognized.

She is an amazing individual, and she has

touched my life in a very important way.

She is my hero, my mentor, my role model,

and my friend. I have a feeling that Mrs.

Ekeland has touched many other lives in the

same way, and I like to think that I speak

for many people when I say that you will be

hard pressed to find anyone more worthy of

the title ‘‘Teacher of the Year’’ than Mrs.

Ekeland.

Mrs. Ekeland was my freshman English

teacher. I have always liked English, but the

year I spent in her classroom was different

from any other class I have ever taken.

Right away it was obvious that she cared

about her students and took a personal interest in the success of each of us. She was

diplomatic and fair, and she respected her

students. I remember leaving class the first

day feeling about a foot taller and finally

feeling like I was a ‘‘grown-up’’. What was

more impressive was that at all times students respected Mrs. Ekeland and her authority. Rarely are there discipline problems

in her classroom, and never have I heard students badmouthing her or complaining about

her outside the classroom. Everyone loves

Mrs. Ekeland. It is as simple as that.

For the next three years I was on the yearbook staff, and as Mrs. Ekeland was the adviser, I not only got the chance to learn from

her again, but I became good friends with

her. I think that I owe much of who I am

today to the confidence that Mrs. Ekeland

bestowed on me those in the course of those

three years. She chose me to be the Editorin-Chief for my senior year, and I learned so

many valuable skills. I learned to be a good

leader, a good writer, and a good mediator. I

learned to be patient and fair. Essentially, I

was attempting to mirror the one individual

I admire more than any other person: Mrs.

Ekeland.

Before I entered high school, I was without

sense of direction. My greatest dream was to

become a stewardess or a librarian. After the

first week or so of my freshman year, I realized with 100% certainty that I wanted to be

a high school teacher—just like Mrs.

Ekeland. I am now entering my junior year

in college, and in my education courses and

in the classrooms in which I student teach, I

constantly find myself making an example of

Mrs. Ekeland’s classroom. Whenever I find

myself in a tough situation, the first thing I

do is ask myself, ‘‘What would Mrs. Ekeland

do if she were in my position?’’ We have remained close over the years, and I value her

friendship and her advice. She has always

been there for me in every capacity: teacher,

counselor, mother-figure, best friend, mentor.

Finally, something needs to be said about

exactly why Mrs. Ekeland qualifies for the

honor of South Dakota Teacher of the Year.

Besides her kindness, her fairness, and her

ability to inspire, this woman is tireless. Her

first priority is her students, and she is constantly working to make sure that their educational needs are met. She is always available to spend extra time on a difficult assignment. Her lectures and assignments are

clear and concise and worthwhile. And most

important in my mind, she is forever seeking

a better way to do things. Just in the past

few years she has revised and improved her

curriculum, and she is working to coordinate

a better curriculum throughout the English

department. She is willing to try new methods and use new materials. Mrs. Ekeland will

do whatever it takes to see that her students

learn. She would go to the ends of the earth

if it meant that even one student would

catch on to grammar rules. She makes every

student feel important. It takes a special

person to be able to do that, and Mrs.

Ekeland can.

Rebecca Ekeland truly is one in a million.

I have never come across anyone who dedicates so much energy to one task—educating

the children of Brookings, South Dakota.

She puts her heart and soul into the success

of every single student that enters her classroom. To me this is what teaching is all

about. She exemplifies the ‘‘Ideal Educator’’

and is more deserving of this honor than any

other person my imagination could conjure

up. Nevertheless, I believe that Mrs.

Ekeland’s reward is watching students grow

up to be successful, happy individuals. She

does not need a fancy plaque or trophy to

hang on her wall. In my mind and in the

minds of many others, she is and always will

be the ‘‘Teacher of the Year’’ this year and

for many years to come.

fJENNIFER LACHER.

MEMORIES OF EXPERIENCES

‘‘BACK WHEN’’

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President,

April’s Commerce Department magazine contains an article entitled ‘‘Commerce Officials Knew Two Congressmen ‘Back When’.’’ As it happens, I am

one of the Congressmen.

‘‘Back then’’ was Vietnam during the

war when Paul London, now Deputy

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

at the Department of Commerce, was

in charge of a State Department unit

involved with economic affairs and I
May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5865

was a young Army lieutenant assigned

to the unit. In the article, Paul reflects

on a small research project I conducted

for him involving the cost of fish in

Saigon. It just goes to show that we

never really escape the actions we take

in this life.

At any rate, Mr. President, the piece

brought back a great many memories

and I am flattered Paul remembered

such a small incident after all these

years. I ask unanimous consent that

the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

COMMERCE OFFICIALS KNEW TWO

CONGRESSMEN ‘‘BACK WHEN’’

OLIA some time ago surveyed senior Commerce officials to determine if any had ever

had any particularly memorable personal

contacts with members of Congress. At least

two of them most certainly had. One of our

Commerce people had a hand in saving a

Congressman’s life. Another was a Senator’s

boss while both were young men serving in

Vietnam.

Larry Irving, assistant secretary for communications and information, was a member

of a delegation visiting Russia when Rep.

Dana Rhorabacher, R-Calif., became quite

ill. Irving administered some first aid procedures which helped bring him through the

crisis.

Paul London, deputy under secretary, was

a State Department aide seconded to the

Agency for International Development when

he first knew Larry Pressler, now a Republican Senator from South Dakota.

London recalls:

‘‘I was head of a unit concerned with economic affairs and Larry was a young Army

lieutenant assigned to us.

‘‘One time, there were reports that the

price of fish (a dietary staple in South Vietnam) might skyrocket because the Viet Cong

were threatening to cut a coastal highway to

Saigon. I had a feeling that most fish supplies to Saigon came from the Mekong Delta,

rather than from the coast and I asked Larry

to check it out.

‘‘A couple of days later he reported that

my surmise was exactly right. ‘Far and away

more fish on the Saigon market come from

the Delta than from coastal fishing boats,’

he reported.

‘‘‘How did you verify that,’ I asked.

‘‘‘I got up before dawn, went down to the

market and asked the people there where the

fish were coming from,’ he said.

‘‘Right then, I thought: ‘This guy is going

to go places. He does things personally,

doesn’t depend on paper shuffling or second

hand information to get to the heart of

something.’’’

The two have retained a cordial relationship ever since.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this

THE BUDGET

fweek and next week, we are going to

come down to the moment of truth on

two issues. One issue has to do with

putting the Federal Government on a

budget like everybody else. The other

issue has to do with fulfilling the Contract With America to let working people keep more of what they earn. I

would like to briefly address both of

these subjects.

In the 1994 election, in one of the

most remarkable political occurrences

in the postwar period, House Republicans did something that is very unusual in the political process and that

is they set out in plain English what

they promised America they would do

if the American people gave them a

majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

I would add that while many people

have forgotten it, Republican candidates for the Senate put out a joint

statement where virtually every Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate

in the country came to Washington and

released a ‘‘Seven More In ’94’’ document, where we outlined seven things

we would do if the American people

gave us a majority.

Two of those promised items had to

do with balancing the budget and with

letting working people keep more of

what they earned. The House of Representatives has done something even

more remarkable than making all

these promises—they have actually

done it. The House of Representatives

has adopted the Contract With America. They have adopted 90 percent of

the things they promised to simply

vote on. And at the best universities in

the land, you would grade that as an

‘‘A.’’

We are now down to the moment of

truth in the U.S. Senate and that moment of truth basically has to do with

whether or not we are going to pass the

Contract With America and whether we

can make the tough decisions necessary in order to do that. To balance

the Federal budget over a 7-year period

and at the same time to accommodate

the tax cut contained in the Contract

With America will require us, over a 7-

year period, to limit the growth in Federal spending to approximately 3 percent a year.

Over the last 40 years, Federal spending has grown at 21⁄2 times the growth

of family budgets in America. Over the

last 40 years, the Federal Government

has increased its spending 21⁄2 times as

fast as the average family in America

has been able to increase its spending.

Now what would America look like if

those trends had been reversed? Well, if

the average family in America had

seen its budget grow as fast as the Government has grown for the last 40

years, and the Government’s budget

had grown only as fast as the family

budget has grown over the last 40

years, the average family in America

today would be earning $128,000 a year

and the Government would be approximately one-third its current size.

I ask my colleagues, if you could

choose between the America where the

governments budget grew faster or an

America where the family’s budget

grew faster—put me down as one who

would favor having the average family

in America make $128,000 a year and

have the Federal Government one-third

its size.

Here is our dilemma. We have some

of our colleagues who say, ‘‘I did not

sign any Contract With America. That

was the House of Representatives.’’ As

I am fond of saying in our private

meetings, that is a subtlety that is lost

on the American people. They do not

see this contract as having been a contract between just the House and the

American people. They see it as a Republican contract. And, quite frankly,

it is a Republican contract. It embodies

everything that our party claims to

stand for.

But what I think is important for the

Senate is not just that Republican candidates signed the contract, not just

that every House Republican incumbent who signed the contract was reelected but I think what is significant

to us is that the American people

signed that contract when they gave us

a majority in both Houses of Congress

for the first time in 40 years.

The question that we are going to

have to answer in the next 3 weeks is,

are we willing to limit the growth of

Government spending to 21⁄2 percent a

year so that we can, over a 7-year period, balance the Federal budget and so

that we can let working families keep

more of what they earn? I believe that

we can and I believe that we should. I

think there are many Republicans in

the Senate who sort of have a problem,

in that they have one foot firmly implanted in the dramatic changes in

Government policy that we promised

the American people in 1994, and they

have the other foot firmly implanted in

the status quo. And, as those two

things have moved further apart, we

have had the predictable result.

I think it is time for us to choose. I

believe in the next 3 weeks we are

going to basically decide whether or

not we meant it in November of 1994

when we told the American people that

we were going to dramatically change

the way Government does its business.

I think the American people are convinced that we can limit the growth of

Government spending to 21⁄2 percent a

year so that we can let families and

businesses spend more of what they

earn.

I know if the President were here, he

would say this is a debate about how

much money we are spending on our

children; or how much money we are

spending on education; or how much

money we are spending on housing or

nutrition.

But that is not what the debate is

about. Everybody in America wants to

spend money on children, housing, education, and nutrition. The debate we

are about to have is not how much

money is going to be spent on those

things, but who is going to do the

spending. Bill Clinton and the Democrats want Government to go on doing

the spending. They want Government

spending to continue to grow 21⁄2 times

as fast as the family budget grows.

I want to put the Federal Government on a diet. I want to slow down the

rate of growth in Government spending

so that we can let working families

keep more of their own money to invest in their own children, in their own

businesses, and in their own future.