May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6829

HOMILY OF THE MOST REV. EDWARD M. EGAN,

BISHOP OF BRIDGEPORT

Your Excellency, Archbishop Cacciavillan,

Reverend Clergy, Members of the John Carroll Society, Distinguished Representatives

of the Bench and Bar, and Friends All:

This past summer, in Canton in the South

of China, I sat in a hotel restaurant with a

Chinese tour-guide who spoke English quite

well. He had brought a busload of tourists to

a store that sold porcelain and silk; and once

they were safely inside, he invited me to join

him for a cup of tea.

He was forty-five years of age, he told me.

In his youth he had dreamed of mastering

the English language and French as well.

However, in the second year of his university

studies, the so-called Cultural Revolution

had intervened.

His eyes flashed as he described that decade of madness in China. He and dozens of

his fellow students had been forced to watch

two of their professors killed in a public

square by a government-inspired mob. He

had stood at attention for hours on several

occasions as thousands of books from the

university library were destroyed in bonfires. And in due course, he had been taken

to the West of China to labor for three years

on collective farms, his whereabouts unknown to family and friends.

‘‘What,’’ I asked him, ‘‘were the leaders of

the Cultural Revolution hoping to achieve

with all of this?’’

‘‘They wanted the people to stop having

unapproved thoughts,’’ he replied. ‘‘They felt

that the nation could prosper only if all were

thinking in the same way—their way, the approved way.’’

He winced a bit as he offered this explanation but was clearly convinced that his

analysis was correct. For he repeated it word

for word as he stared into his empty teacup:

‘‘They felt that the nation could prosper

only if all were thinking in the same way—

their way, the approved way.’’

You and I, my dear friends, are privileged

to live in a land in which the imposition of

thought by government is rejected out of

hand. And in no small measure we have the

legal profession to thank for this blessing.

It was lawyers like Montesquieu and

Montaigne who were crucial in developing

the basic political ideas of our free society.

Twenty-five of the fifty-six who signed the

Declaration of Independence, with its cry for

justice and equality, were practicing attorneys. Even more, the fundamental charters

of our nation, such as the Constitution and

the Bill of Rights, with their uncompromising commitments to freedom of thought,

were largely the work of legal experts with

names like Jefferson, Adams, Wilson, Jay,

Wythe, and Marshall.

Still, there are in our country today rumblings in many quarters about thoughts that

are approved and thoughts that are not.

Thus, the expression, ‘‘politically correct,’’

has become a staple in our vocabularies. Indeed, over the past year or two it has graduated to the level of a familiar abbreviation.

Few there are who do not know the meaning

of ‘‘p.c.’’

One is politically correct, we understand,

when one agrees with the ‘‘important’’ newspapers, the ‘‘quoted’’ professors, the ‘‘best’’

commentators, the ‘‘most influential’’ personalities. Nor can there be any doubt that

this understanding is operating with remarkable efficiency. From Atlantic to Pacific, the

vast majority of adult Americans are able to

identify with extraordinary ease and accuracy those ideas, positions, and thoughts

which are today in our land ‘‘correct’’ or, if

you prefer, ‘‘approved.’’

The Readings from Sacred Scripture in our

Mass this morning remind us of two cases in

point. The first of these Readings, from the

Book of Genesis, is among the most familiar

in all of Holy Writ. It speaks of the mind of

the Divinity as regards the basics of the

human condition. The male, we read, was

from the time of creation not to be left

alone. Rather, he was to be joined by a companion, a partner, a wife, so that together

they might live out their years, two in fact

but one in heart and love. And from that

love was to result a miracle within the wife,

a miracle before which every generation

since creation has stood in awe.

In our time, however, the miracle has become as well a source of controversy. Simply

put, the matter under discussion is this: May

society stand idly by while a private party

puts a violent end to the miracle?

Those who have embraced the ‘‘approved’’

thinking, the ‘‘correct’’ thinking, answer

with a resounding ‘‘yes.’’ The miracle, they

allege, may be killed with impunity.

Others, however, dare to sing outside the

chorus. Their reasoning should not be difficult to understand. The being within the

mother, they note, gives strong indications

of being a human being, a person with an inalienable right to live. Certainly, no one has

ever been able to prove the contrary. Hence,

they conclude, society has no choice but to

fulfill its most fundamental duty as regards

the being in question. It must protect it

against attack.

There is no hint of religion in any of this

unapproved thinking, though many religious

people, for a multitude of religious reasons,

support it. There is no mention of doctrine,

dogma, sacred writings, or anything of the

sort. At issue are only matters which are

properly and strictly matters of the law: the

meaning of personhood, the basic rights of

individuals, the power of legal presumptions,

and the most elementary and essential duties of society. These and nothing more.

Still, there is a tactic abroad in our land to

characterize the unapproved thinking as exclusively religious and to refuse to allow it a

fair hearing on this score. The tactic is clever, widespread, and effective. It should also

be frightening to all who cherish the free and

honorable exchange of ideas, positions, and

thoughts—lawyers first and foremost.

The Gospel Reading, too, calls to mind a

controversy of our time in which only certain thoughts appear to be approved.

The Lord, in the lovely account of Saint

Luke, instructs His closest followers not to

keep children from Him. ‘‘Let them come to

Me, do not hinder them,’’ He says, ‘‘for it is

to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.’’

Parents there are, to be sure, who would

not be comfortable with having their children, the miracles of their love, accept such

an invitation. And in this free land of ours

their point of view is properly and vigorously

protected. But other parents there are who

firmly believe that the invitation of the Lord

is most worthy, parents who wish their offspring to be educated according to the mind

and will of the One Whom they call their

God.

The thought of this second group is, of

course, unapproved; and the tactic for dismissing it is well-known. All monies that

governments collect to support schools, it is

announced, must go only to those institutions in which every mention of the Divinity

is outlawed. For otherwise, the state would

be sustaining religion.

But when such a rule is implemented, the

unapproved thinkers protest, is not irreligion being sustained? Why erect a wall only

between religion and the state? Why not

erect another, no less high, between the

state and irreligion? Or more to the point:

Why not simply concede to all parents equally the right to choose the schools of their

children and to share in the funds gathered

by society to support them.

The plea is somehow ruled out of order.

The ‘‘important’’ newspapers, the ‘‘quoted’’

professors, the ‘‘best’’ commentators, the

‘‘most influential’’ personalities have spoken. It remains, it would seem, for lawyers

to insist that the unapproved point of view

be heard and explored. For they are uniquely

positioned to do this as counselors, judges,

writers, thinkers, and legislators; and what

is more: they have a long and noble tradition

in this land of respecting and defending

thought, even when it is ‘‘unapproved.’’

But the second Reading of our Mass this

morning, from the Epistle to the Hebrews,

provides yet another reason for lawyers to

address the aforementioned issues of unapproved thinking and any others that come to

mind. That reason is, I confess, plainly and

exquisitely religious. It is simply this: We

are all children of the one Father in heaven;

hence, we have no choice but to listen to one

another with attention, concern, and love.

Many years ago I pastored a parish on the

Southside of Chicago. The community was

African-American. In fact, one of my parishioners often reminded me that I was very

likely the only white voter in the precinct.

My closest adviser was a retired army

major who spent many an evening chatting

with me about life in the distressed neighborhoods of the Windy City.

‘‘Father,’’ he used to tell me, ‘‘we are

never going to be the nation we should be as

long as any of us are kept out of the national

conversation. We’ve got to find some powerful folks to let us all in.’’

This morning, thanks to the very kind invitation of the Archbishop of Washington,

James Cardinal Hickey, I have the honor to

speak to just such ‘‘powerful folks.’’ Over the

past thirty years, we as a nation have

learned that the Black community must be a

respected participant in the ‘‘national conversation.’’ We are every day becoming more

aware that the same is true of the Hispanic

community. I pray that now is the time for

the religious community as well. And I pray

too that lawyers will lead the way in this regard, not only because of their historic position as protectors of thought and its free expression but also, and especially, because

they realize, indeed, embrace in faith, that

we are all children of one God, sisters and

brothers who need—and have a right—to be

heard.

TRIBUTE TO MR. DARWIN

HINDMAN AND THE DOLPHIN DE-

∑

fFENDERS

∑ Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise

today to pay special tribute to Mr.

Darwin Hindman of Columbia, MO, and

the Dolphin Defenders of St. Louis,

MO. These outstanding Missourians are

among 15 honorees nationwide to receive this year’s Chevron-Times Mirror

Magazines Conservation Award. This

honor is being bestowed in recognition

of the contributions made by Mr.

Hindman and the Dolphin Defenders to

environmental conservation and development. I congratulate them for their

highly notable achievements and encourage their continued efforts to create balanced solutions to natural resources problems.

Mr. Darwin Hindman, Jr., the newly

elected mayor of Columbia and president of Missouri Rails Trails Foundation, Inc., is one of five receiving the

Citizen Volunteer Award. Mr. Hindman
S6830 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

is responsible for establishing Katy

Trail State Park along the north bank

of the Missouri River. Through his public activism and fundraising efforts,

Mr. Hindman successfully spearheaded

creation of the Katy Trail that follows

the historic Lewis and Clark expedition

of 1804 to 1806. Mr. Hindman also was

instrumental in developing the MKT

Fitness/Nature Trail. Mr. Hindman and

the foundation are working with the

State and others to expand the Katy

Trail, with the goal of extending it

across the State.

The Dolphin Defenders of St. Louis is

a group of more than 50 inner city children working to restore their neighborhood by improving the environment.

Their name comes from the group’s desire to mimic dolphin behavior of protecting each other from danger. The

Dolphin Defenders revitalized a once

trash laden vacant lot used by drug

dealers and abusers into a beautiful environmental retreat now known as the

Promised Land. The group has also recognized children surviving in violent

communities by planting 31 trees on

Arbor Day in Visitation Park. The Dolphin Defenders are one of five nonprofit

organizations/public agencies to receive this year’s Conservation Award.

Moneys raised from the youth group’s

continuous collection and recycling of

tires and glass bottles enable the Dolphin Defenders to pursue new environmental projects.

The honorees will be recognized at an

awards dinner on May 17 in Washington, DC, and will receive a $2,000 award

along with a bronze plaque acknowledging their achievements and continued efforts to enhance the environment. The awards program was established in 1954 by the late Ed Zern, a nationally recognized sportsman, humorist, author, and former columnist for

Field & Stream. Nearly 900 individuals

and organizations have received this

award since its conception to honor individuals and groups who protect and

enhance renewable natural resources.

My sincerest congratulations to Mr.

Hindman and the Dolphin Defenders for

their significant accomplishments and

contributions to conservation and the

environment.

f∑

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

POSITIONS

∑ Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on

April 7, 1995, the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources filed the report

to accompany S. 610, a bill to provide

for a visitor center at the Civil War

Battlefield of Corinth, MS.

At the time this report was filed, the

Department of the Interior had not

submitted its position regarding this

measure. The committee has since received this communication from the

Department of the Interior, and I ask

that it be printed in the RECORD for the

advice of the Senate.

The communication follows:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, DC, May 10, 1995.

Hon. FRANK MURKOWSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Legislation authorizing the construction of a visitor center at

Corinth, Mississippi, S. 610, has been reported out of the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources. In addition to providing

for a visitor center, which would be administered as part of Shiloh National Military

Park, the bill authorizes the Secretary to

mark sites associated with the Siege and

Battle of Corinth National Historic Landmark.

On July 25, 1994, we testified before the

House Subcommittee on National Parks,

Forests, and Public Lands regarding the proposed visitor center at the Civil War Battlefield of Corinth. In our testimony we opposed

construction of an interpretive center at

Corinth. We believe such a facility is unnecessary given the presence of the National

Park Service visitor center at nearby Shiloh

Military Park. A visitor center at Corinth is

particularly difficult to justify in light of

current fiscal constraints. The cost estimate

for the proposed 5,300-square-foot interpretive center is $6 million which includes the

cost of development, operation and maintenance for 5 years.

We continue to oppose proposals to construct a visitor center at Corinth. The current legislation, S. 610, would give the National Park Service primary responsibility

for interpreting the story of Corinth. We believe this responsibility rests more appropriately at the local level. It is not fiscally

possible for the National Park Service to

have interpretive centers at every significant site associated with the Civil War. We

believe we can appropriately relate the story

of the Civil War in this area from our current facilities at Shiloh National Military

Park.

The Office of Management and Budget has

advised that there is no objection to the

presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely,

GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, JR.,

Assistant Secretary for

Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on

April 7, 1995, the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources filed the report

to accompany H.R. 400, a bill to provide

for the exchange of lands within Gates

of the Arctic National Park and Preserve.

At the time this report was filed, the

Department of the Interior had not

submitted its position regarding this

measure. The committee has since received this communication from the

Department of the Interior, and I ask

that it be printed in the RECORD for the

advice of the Senate.

The material follows:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Wasington, DC, April 26, 1995.

Hon. FRANK MURKOWSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are writing to express the Department of the Interior (Department) position on H.R. 400, ‘‘To provide

for the exchange of lands within Gates of the

Arctic National Park and Preserve, and for

other purposes,’’ as reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The

proposed legislation includes two titles

which relate to Gates of the Arctic National

Park (Title I) and the acquisition of subsurface rights from Koniag, Inc. (Title II) on

the Alaska peninsula.

We strongly support Title I of H.R. 400,

‘‘Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange and Wilderness Redesignation,’’ as approved by the

Committee. Title I authorizes a land exchange involving the National Park Service

(NPS), the Nunamiut Corporation and the

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation concerning lands in and around Gates of the Arctic

National Park and Preserve. The proposed

exchange marks thousands of hours of work

and over 10 years of negotiations among the

affected parties. We believe the proposed exchange would resolve difficult land use issues, improve the management of the Park

and benefit the people of Anaktuvuk Pass.

Accordingly, the Alaska native community,

the Department and private groups all supported the version of H.R. 400 that the House

of Representatives passed unanimously on

February 1, 1995.

As reported to the Senate, however, Title

II of H.R. 400, ‘‘Alaska Peninsula Subsurface

Consolidation,’’ directs the Secretary of the

Interior to acquire oil and gas rights and

other subsurface interests on the Alaska peninsula from Koniag, Incorporated. We

strongly oppose Title II for the following

reasons. First, we do not believe that Koniag

has valid selections to some of the lands that

the proposed legislation would direct the

Secretary to acquire. Second, both the NPS

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

consider the acquisition of Koniag’s mineral

interests to be an extremely low priority in

terms of the missions of the two agencies.

However, even if we were to disregard this

factor, there is a third and most critical

problem with the bill as currently drafted:

we believe that the directed appraisal methodology would establish a significant negative precedent in terms of longstanding and

widely accepted appraisal practices. In sum,

we believe that the valuation and acquisition

of these interests, as directed by Title II, do

not serve the interests of the Department,

the Federal Government or the public at

large.

A more detailed statement of our objections follows:

1. Status of Koniag entitlements and selections has not yet been determined.—The

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as

amended, authorizes Koniag to receive the

rights to oil and gas and sand and gravel

used in connection with exploration and development of the oil and gas to 343,000 acres.

However, Koniag has selected approximately

465,158 acres of subsurface estate, an

overselection of approximately 122,158 acres:

Alaska Peninsula NWR: 266,068 acres of

subsurface selections.

Becharof NWR: 14,080 acres of subsurface

selections.

Aniakchak NM and pres.: 185,010 acres of

subsurface selections.

Total selections: 465,158 acres of subsurface

estate.

Overselections: 122,158 acres of subsurface

estate.

Title II does not resolve the issue of

Koniag’s overselections. It is our understanding that the map referenced in Section

201(8) includes all of Koniag’s selections, but

does not identify Koniag’s 275,000 acre entitlement. The validity of certain Koniag selections is currently the subject of administrative litigation. On October 12, 1993, the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rejected

a portion of Koniag’s selections. Koniag has

appealed the BLM decision and the issue is

currently before the Interior Board of Land

Appeals.

Based on the above, we object to proposed

legislation which would require the Federal

Government to acquire property where the

validity of certain selections is under appeal.