E 920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 2, 1995

1On May 3rd, at its Annual Dinner to be held at

the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, the Leadership

Conference will be celebrating its 45th Anniversary

and presenting its Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights

Award to Ralph G. Neas.

We should not send a signal that we are willing to return to the days when profitable corporations could completely escape taxation.

One proposal in the bill is so atrocious it requires special mention. The so-called ‘‘neutral

cost recovery system’’ is a potentially disastrous idea masquerading as a simple, fair investment incentive.

NCRS, or ‘‘nickers’’, as it is known, aims to

help solve a real problem for American business. But it is plainly the wrong answer to the

right question. The question is, ‘‘What can we

do to make the depreciation rules more simple

and more favorable to investment?’’ The answer provided by NCRS is to add complexity,

make depreciation a multiple choice game,

raise the prospect of tax shelter activities, and

try to hide $120 billion in lost revenues by

pushing it outside the budget window.

Other provisions in the bill pursue worthwhile goals. For instance, the bill correctly

identifies the ‘‘marriage penalty’’ as a problem

for many American families. Yet the solution it

proposes would require these families to plow

through a complex set of instructions and calculations, only, at the end, to qualify for a

maximum of $145 in relief.

The centerpiece of the plan is the proposal

to provide tax relief to beleaguered American

families through a child credit. But characteristically, the bill goes too far. The bill’s sponsors

make the case that middle class families making thirty to fifty thousand dollars a year are

hard-pressed and deserve relief. But that argument cannot be made with the same force

to apply to families making $150,000 to

$200,000 a year. Yet they will enjoy the full

benefit of this child tax credit.

The point here is not that upper income

Americans should be punished for their success. The point is that the problem with this

entire bill, and the reason we should defeat it,

is that we simply can’t afford it.

Mr. Chairman, the national debt of the United States is fast approaching five trillion dollars. We continue to add two hundred billion

dollars a year to that total.

This Congress has talked a strong game on

deficit reduction. We have talked about

amending the constitution. We have talked

about making the hard choices. Today,

though, we are not making hard choices. We

are making easy choices.

We have before us a bill that provides specific tax cuts. $630 billion worth, over the next

ten years, of very specific tax cuts. Every

American knows about the $500 child credit.

Every business knows about the AMT relief.

Every investor knows about the capital gains

exclusion. We have been specific in making

the easy choices.

But when it comes to spending cuts, we

have not been specific. We have passed a

package of rescissions. $12 billion dollars. We

have passed a welfare reform bill that would,

if enacted, cut spending by $62 billion over

five years. We have in this package today

Medicare savings and reforms of the pension

plans for federal employes, Members of the

House, and our staff, that will save, combined,

$21 billion over five years.

The total spending cuts—specific, identified

spending cuts—included in this package will

save $87 billion over five years. Add in the

$12 billion saved in the rescission, and you

have $99 billion. That amount is slightly more

than half the $189 billion cost of the tax cuts.

Where is the rest of it? It comes in the form

of a promise. The sponsors of the bill promise

they will save the rest of the money by lowering the caps on discretionary spending. They

have issued an ‘‘illustrative list’’ of spending

cuts.

But we have no specific cuts. We can tell

the American people what taxes we are cutting, and how much of their money we are giving back. We know how much federal revenue

we will give up in the process. But when the

American people say, ‘‘Thank you very much

for the tax cut. But I thought the government

was deep in debt. How can you afford to cut

taxes?,’’ this bill answers ‘‘Don’t worry, we’ll

tell you later.’’

Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. To

balance the federal budget will require $1.2

trillion in savings over the next seven years.

This bill takes a giant step backwards in

achieving that goal. It would add $630 billion

in red ink over the next decade.

Let’s make this clear—we need deficit reduction now—first. If, after we have cut spending and reduced the deficit to the point where

it no longer acts as a drag on the economy,

then we can talk about further spending cuts

to provide tax relief. But the spending cuts

have to be specific, not just promises. That’s

the reason I will vote no on this legislation.

TRIBUTE TO RALPH G. NEAS

fHON. KWEISI MFUME OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit

for the RECORD a column prepared by the

chairperson of the Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights [LCCR], Dr. Dorothy Height. This

column speaks to the endless contributions

that this organization’s executive director,

Ralph G. Neas, has made over the years.

Ralph is completing his 14-year tenure at the

helm of the LCCR and I wanted to take this

time to share this article which reflects upon

his contributions to equal opportunity for all

Americans.

THE NEAS YEARS AT THE LEADERSHIP

CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Last summer, Ralph G. Neas announced

that he would be leaving as Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil

Rights (LCCR)1 in the Spring of 1995. Much

too soon that time has come. As Ralph completes his fourteen-year tenure at the helm

of the Nation’s oldest, largest, and most

broadly-based coalition, it is an appropriate

moment to reflect upon his extraordinary

contributions to the cause of equal opportunity for all Americans and some of the reasons why he has earned his reputation as an

effective leader, strategist, advocate, and coalition builder.

THE BIPARTISAN LEGISLATIVE SUCCESSES

Ralph Neas took over as Executive Director of the Leadership Conference, the legislative arm of the civil rights movement, on

March 31, 1981, after eight years as a chief

legislative assistant to Republican Senators

Edward W. Brooke and Dave Durenberger.

Ronald Reagan had just been sworn in as

president. Senators Strom Thurmond and

Orrin Hatch had just replaced Senators Edward Kennedy and Birch Bayh as chairs of

the Senate Judiciary Committee and the

Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution,

respectively. The previous year, Senator

Hatch had successfully filibustered to death

the Leadership Conference’s top legislative

priority, the Fair Housing Act of 1980. Many

feared that a similar fate awaited the Conference’s top priority in the 97th Congress,

the legislation to extend the Voting Rights

Act of 1965, which was to be introduced in

early April of 1981.

No small wonder then that many friends of

Ralph, who just two years earlier had been

totally paralyzed, on a respirator, and near

death in a Minneapolis hospital room, told

him that this was not their idea of a brilliant career move. But Ralph believed that

his professional training in the Senate,

where he had been the senior staffer on civil

rights issues, and his bout with GuillainBarre Syndrome, which had profoundly influenced his life, had prepared him for such a

professional challenge.

The situation in the Spring of 1981 demanded bipartisanship, creativity, pragmatism, and leadership. Ralph and his LCCR

colleagues showed an abundance of these

qualities during the arduous eighteen month

campaign to enact the 1982 Voting Rights

Act Extension. Many people argued that the

time for federal control over local voting

processes had ended. But LCCR advocates

demonstrated a continuing need and their efforts helped pass the extension by votes of

389 to 24 in the House of Representatives and

85 to 8 in the Senate, leaving President

Reagan with no choice but to sign the historic measure into law. That law not only

extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years,

but also extended the Act’s bilingual assistance provisions and overturned a 1980 Supreme Court decision by reinstating the results standard in the Voting Rights Act.

The remarkable victory against great odds

set the tone for the next fourteen years for

LCCR. Indeed, the 1982 Voting Rights Act

Extension campaign embodied several of

Ralph’s principal legislative theorems. Theorem number one is to always put together

the strongest possible bipartisan bill that

can be enacted into law. During the twelve

years of the Reagan-Bush presidencies, that

usually meant having at least two-thirds

majorities in both Houses. Theorem number

two is that any successful national legislative campaign must effectively integrate

grassroots, Washington lobbying, and media

strategies. If one component is absent, the

legislative campaign is likely to fail. And

third, it is essential that the coalition always remains cohesive and united, never allowing adversaries to successfully use the

tactics of divide and conquer. If these basic

principles are understood, then one can comprehend the success of the 1982 Voting Rights

Act Extension and the legislative victories

that followed.

And there were many other LCCR legislative successes. No one could have predicted

that more than two dozen LCCR legislative

priorities would be enacted into law during

Ralph’s years at LCCR. In addition to the

1982 Voting Rights Act Extension, Ralph coordinated many of these legislative achievements for the Leadership Conference, including the:

Civil Rights Act of 1991—Overturned eight

Supreme Court decisions which had made it

much more difficult for victims of discrimination to get into court and to prove discrimination (the first time Congress has ever

overturned more than one Supreme Court decision at one time). It also codified the ‘‘disparate impact’’ standard. And it provided for

the first time monetary damages for women,
May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 921

persons with disabilities, and certain religious minorities who are victims of intentional job discrimination.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)—

Perhaps the most significant and dramatic

improvement in civil rights law in two decades. Provided civil rights protections in employment, transportation, communications,

and public accommodations for the 49 million Americans with disabilities.

Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988—

Provided for the first time an effective enforcement mechanism. Also prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities

and discrimination against families with

children.

Japanese-American Redress Bill (1988)—

Apologized to Japanese-Americans interned

in prison camps in the United States during

World War II and authorized $20,000 to each

of those who are alive.

Civil Rights Restoration Act—Congress

overrode a presidential veto and overturned

the 1984 Supreme Court Grove City decision.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act restored

the broad coverage of the four major civil

rights laws that prohibit the federal funding

of discrimination against minorities, women,

persons with disabilities, and older Americans.

The final passage votes on all these laws

averaged 85% of both the House and the Senate. In recognition of that extraordinary bipartisan success, Senator Edward Kennedy

has called Ralph ‘‘the 101st Senator on Civil

Rights.’’

Ralph also managed the successful campaigns to preserve the Executive Order on

Affirmative Action in 1985–1986 and to defeat

the Supreme Court nomination of Robert

Bork. The Bork campaign was perhaps the

most forceful statement of the determination of the coalition that the civil rights

gains of three decades would not be rolled

back.

Other LCCR legislative priorities enacted

into law over the past fourteen years include

the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Motor

Voter Bill, the South African Sanctions Legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration

Act, the Voting Rights Language Assistance

Act of 1982, the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1994 (including Chapter One

reform), the Martin Luther King Holiday

Act, three disability measures which overturned Supreme Court decisions, the Age

Discrimination in Employment Claims Assistance Act, the Gender Equity in Education Act, the Voting Accessibility for Disabled and Senior Citizens Act, the 1989 Minimum Wage Increase, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, and key provisions of the Economic

Equity Act.

Without question, the past decade and a

half has been, legislatively, a bipartisan reaffirmation of civil rights laws and a bipartisan repudiation of the right-wing legal philosophy. Indeed, the right wing did not enact

one major item on its regressive civil rights

agenda during that time. The LCCR victories

are even more remarkable when one considers that during this time two branches of

government were hostile to civil rights.

While the civil rights coalition and its congressional allies achieved considerable success, there was a serious downside to the

Reagan-Bush years. We had to refight the

civil rights battles that had been won during

the 1960’s and the 1970’s. While these battles

were won once again, Congress, the civil

rights community, and the Nation had to devote an inordinate amount of time, energy

and resources in waging these rearguard actions. Consequently, while the legal achievements of the past 30 years were preserved

and in a number of instances, strengthened,

the Nation by and large was unable to address the unfinished agenda of the civil

rights movement—the quest for social and

economic justice.

For years, Ralph and his LCCR colleagues

have been advocating that economic justice

must be the civil rights coalition’s top priority. Our legislative efforts should focus primarily in such issues as health care; affordable housing economic security, especially

for women and children; child care; Head

Start and other early educational opportunities; employment opportunity, including job

creation and job training; and economic

empowerment issues. Regrettably, just as

this economic opportunity agenda seemed to

be moving to the front of the legislative line,

once again we may have to devote our energies to resisting efforts to dismantle the legislative achievement of the past several decades.

While the battles will be hard fought, I remain confident that LCCR and its allies will

once again defeat the efforts of the right

wing, whether the issue be affirmative action

or the economic security net for millions of

Americans. Indeed, the same type of bipartisanship, creativity, and pragmatism that

characterized our efforts in the 1980’s and

early 1990’s will lead us to victory in the last

half of the 1990’s.

THE EXPLOSIVE INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH OF THE

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

While the legislative successes are critically important, it is also important to point

out the institutional successes as well. the

fourteen years Ralph has spent managing

LCCR have been characterized by explosive

growth. The budget of the Leadership Conference has grown seven-fold since 1981. And

the Leadership Conference, always the nation’s largest coalition, has added more than

50 new national organizations, during this

time. Some of the new members are the

American Association of Retired Persons

(AARP), the Association of Junior Leagues,

the Disability Rights Education and Defense

Fund, the American Association of University Women, the Mexican American legal Defense and Education Fund, the Service Employees International Union, the Congress of

National Black Churches, the American

Nurses Association, the Puerto Rican Legal

Defense and Education Fund, Families USA,

the National PTA, People For The American

Way, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters

and Joiners of America, the Human Rights

Campaign Fund, Citizen Action, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. There are now 180 national organizations, with memberships totaling more than

50 million Americans, who belong to the

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Such institutional growth has meant also

the expansion of LCCR priorities. In addition

to minority, gender, religious, and age issues, the Leadership Conference has forged a

consensus on disability and gay and lesbian

civil rights issues. The exceptional growth of

the coalition, while generating new challenges, has made the Leadership Conference

stronger and even more effective.

Throughout the years, Ralph has masterfully maintained unity among the diverse

elements of the LCCR coalition. And through

his work in LCCR, on Capitol Hill, with the

Executive Branch, and with the business

community, Ralph has earned respect for his

ability to build bridges between disparate

communities of interest and across the spectrum of political ideologies.

Ralph has also managed the Leadership

Conference Education Fund (LCEF), an independent organization that supports educational activities relevant to civil rights.

Along with Karen McGill Arrington, LCEF’s

Deputy Director, he has supervised projects

such as an award winning public service advertising campaign promoting tolerance and

diversity; a children’s anti-discrimination

campaign; and the publication of books and

reports on emerging civil rights issues.

RALPH’S NEW CAREER

To say the least, things have not slowed

down during Ralph’s final months as LCCR’s

Executive Director. He was a key strategist

in the successful effort to defeat the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.

Presently, he is coordinating the campaign

to save affirmative action. In addition,

Ralph is lecturing one day per week on the

legislative process at the University of Chicago Law School.

In May, Ralph will embark on a new phase

of his professional life. He will join the

Washington law firm of Fox, Bennett, and

Turner, where he will be Of Counsel. At the

law firm, he will set up an affiliate, The Neas

Group, which will provide strategic counseling to business and non-profit institutions.

In addition, Ralph will be a Visiting Professor on a part-time basis at the Georgetown

University Law Center where he will teach

courses on the legislative process.

Among the boards on which he will continue to serve are the Guillain-Barre Syndrome Foundation International, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,

and the Children’s Charities Foundation.

On behalf of everyone in the Leadership

Conference, I want to express our deepest

gratitude to Ralph and wish him well in all

his new endeavors. We will miss the personal

qualities that made Ralph so effective in his

job—his cheerfulness and optimism even

when facing great challenges, his patience in

working with people to resolve differences

within the coalition, and the respect he accorded to everyone’s point of view. But we

know that there will be many opportunities

to work with him as we confront the challenges ahead of us. There is no question in

my mind that Ralph will continue to be one

of the drum majors for justice.

TRIBUTE TO STEVEN F.

WINDMUELLER, PH.D.

f

HON. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON OF CALIFORNIA

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN OF CALIFORNIA

HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 2, 1995

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to our dear friend, Steven

Windmueller, who is retiring after a decade of

distinguished service to the Jewish Community

Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation

Council of Los Angeles.

Steven’s career reflects a lifelong commitment to the enhancement of Jewish education

and community relations. Since 1969, he has

actively initiated, supervised, and directed a

host of programs to further these goals. In recognition of this dedication, Steven was recently honored by the Jewish Communal Professionals Association of Southern California,

as well as by Operation Unity, a project dedicated to improving intergroup relations in Los

Angeles.

In addition to his full-time employment with

JCRC and his service to a host of community

service endeavors, Steven utilizes his doctorate in international relations as an adjunct faculty member for the Hebrew Union College’s