May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 977

HONORING TUDOR CITY GREENS

HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand before my distinguished colleagues to honor the

invaluable work of Tudor City Greens.

Tudor City Greens is a not-for-profit organization that maintains two parks within the

Tudor City complex; one of New York City’s

most densely populated neighborhoods. Surrounded by the steel and glass of towering

skyscrapers, these two parks have provided

tranquility and beauty for the public’s enjoyment since the late 1920’s.

The importance of the parks to New York’s

quality of life was brought to the forefront

when the very existence of the parks were

threatened in 1972. That year a real estate

developer bought the Tudor City complex and

planned to build apartments on the parks. The

community rallied against the developer and

vehemently battled to save the parks. After a

15-year legal battle, the properties were sold

to Time Equities who donated the parks to the

Trust for Public Land. The parks were deemed

only for recreational and cultural use and in

1988 Tudor City and its parks were designated an historic district by the Landmarks

Preservation Commission in 1988.

Tudor City Greens was founded in January

of 1987 by residents of the complex to preserve and maintain the parks. Since its conception, the organization has worked diligently

to develop and implement a comprehensive

plan to restore and maintain the parks. They

have cultivated new gardens, initiated a tree

care program and organized annual events

such as Easter egg hunts, caroling and a Halloween parade.

On May 10, Tudor City Greens, will sponsor

its Parks Celebration to focus the city’s attention on the beauty of the parks, and the continuing efforts to preserve them. I would like to

personally thank the directors of Tudor City

Greens for their dedication and outstanding

work in preserving one of New York’s cultural

treasures.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to

Tudor City Greens for providing the citizens of

New York with this emerald isle deep within

the heart of New York.

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT TO

BE OFFERED TO THE CLEAN AIR

fACT

HON. RANDY TATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had

preprinted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an

amendment offered by myself, and my distinguished colleague, Representative MIKE

PARKER, to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995.

The explanation follows:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 961 TO RESOLVE THE TACOMA CASE BY INCLUDING STATE WATER

QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FERC LICENSING PROCESS—EXPLANATION

The purpose of this amendment is to address the serious concerns that the Supreme

Court’s 1994 Tacoma decision are creating for

the nation’s hydropower projects. These

projects are the leading source of clean, renewable electric energy in this country. But

they are operating under a cloud because the

Supreme Court has interpreted the Clean

Water Act, in particular section 401 of the

Act, so broadly as to effectively supersede

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC)’s licensing authority over the

projects under the Federal Power Act.

This amendment would rectify that situation. It directs state water quality agencies

to provide their Clean Water Act recommendations—for hydropower projects

under the Commission’s jurisdiction—to the

Commission to consider under the Federal

Power Act. Section 10(a) of the Federal

Power Act requires FERC to conduct a

lengthy, comprehensive review of both proposed hydropower projects and existing

projects upon relicensing. That review focuses heavily on the potential environmental

impacts of each project and best ways to

mitigate or avoid those impact. Furthermore, section 10(a) specifically requires the

Commission to take into account the recommendations of state and federal agencies,

Indian tribes, and the public. Therefore, in

the context of hydropower projects under

FERC’s jurisdiction, it makes sense to fold

state water quality agency recommendations

into the comprehensive licensing process

that already exists under the Federal Power

Act. This amendment accomplishes that objective.

TRIBUTE TO CPL BRUCE BARDELL

fHON. JOHN D. DINGELL OF MICHIGAN

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

pay tribute to a distinguished police officer

who is retiring as a hero from the Allen Park,

MI, Police Department. Cpl. Bruce Bardell was

honored last month by the city he has served

with bravery and skill for 29 years.

Since being wounded by a gunshot fired by

a fleeing felon in 1978, Corporal Bardell has

undergone four major surgeries, the most recent of which was in January of this year. I

would like to share with my colleagues a little

about the incident that led to this injury because it reveals much about the character of

this officer, and the other officers on the Allen

Park police force.

On June 3, 1978, Corporal Bardell was

among the officers dispatched when a larceny

was reported in the north end of the city. The

suspects fled in a car. After the police gave

chase, the suspects abandoned their vehicle

and escaped through back yards on foot in the

dark. When a resident reported a prowler, Officer Bardell responded. Upon arriving to the

area of the report, he viewed a shadowy figure

darting in a nearby yard, and gave chase on

foot. Officer Bardell was surprised by a second suspect hiding behind a garage, who fired

two shots at point blank range, striking Officer

Bardell in the abdomen. He managed to return

fire, striking the suspect, who was immobilized

until other officers arrived on the scene.

Officer Bardell returned to duty following his

recovery from his injuries, and I am pleased to

be able to report that his assailant is still imprisoned, serving a 60- to 100-year term.

However, I must also note that Corporal

Bardell has suffered continuing health problems as a result of this craven criminal act.

Despite these problems, he has continued to

serve with distinction and honor.

For his years of dedicated service to the

people of Allen Park, for his bravery in the

face of great danger, and for his record as a

good and faithful citizen, I call upon my colleagues in the House to join me in saluting

this great American.

MONEY TO BURN

fHON. TOM LANTOS OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure

you know, Arson Awareness Week, commemorating the end of the Los Angeles fires

set during the 1992 riots, just ended, with

communities all across the country focussing

public attention on the terrible costs in lives

and money from arson for profit. Arson Awareness Week has the support of firefighters

around the Nation, many of whom have organized with consumers, government agencies

and insurers to combat this form of insurance

fraud through public information and the advocacy of such groups as the Coalition Against

Insurance Fraud. The coalition recently published in its newsletter the following article,

‘‘Money To Burn’’, which I would like inserted

in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in recognition

of our firefighters and the arson problem:

MONEY TO BURN

(By Michael E. Diegel)

ARSON-FOR-PROFIT AND ITS MANY FACES ARE A

DANGEROUS—SOMETIMES DEADLY—FORM OF

INSURANCE FRAUD

In 560 cases in 1993, someone’s world ended

just as biblical writers predicted—in a blaze

of fire.

The 560 dead were the victims not of apocryphal wrath but of arson.

For at least 80 other people living in apartments above a New York warehouse, salvation came in the form of investigators who

unearthed a plot to burn the warehouse for

the insurance money.

There’s no way to know how many of the

560 were killed in cases of arson for profit,

but experts believe at least 15 percent of reported fires are deliberately set for several

reasons, including insurance fraud and other

profit-seeking motives.

‘‘It’s as difficult, or perhaps even more so,

as determining the level of [other types of]

insurance fraud,’’ said Rick Gilman of the

Insurance Committee for Arson Control.

‘‘It’s perhaps more difficult because arson

covers a wide variety of motives where generally insurance fraud is strictly for profit.’’

He defines arson for profit as ‘‘an intentionally set fire to recover some financial

gain. Maybe it’s financial gain through insurance proceeds, maybe it’s financial gain

through reducing the competition, maybe

it’s financial gain through some other avenue.

‘‘There isn’t any information as to how

common it is,’’ Gilman continued. ‘‘The

whole issue is one that’s very difficult to

find out anything about because there hasn’t

been an effective study of that aspect of

arson for over a decade.’’

A 1982 study of closed claims files from 1980

was conducted by the Insurance Research

Council’s organizational predecessor, Gilman

said.

‘‘In general, what they found in the voluntary [insurance] market, the percentage of