S5748 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 27, 1995

Many school districts such as New

York, Los Angeles, and San Diego that

have already implemented zero tolerance policies are seeing fewer guns

brought to school, and as a result fewer

student expulsions.

In San Diego, gun possession on campus was cut in half during 1993, the

first year of that district’s policy, and

there have been only 5 gun possession

cases during this year.

Under the Gun-Free Schools Act,

States have until October 1995 to enact

or revise their own zero tolerance policies for school districts, requiring that

students caught with guns on campus

be expelled for not less than a year.

Fourth, the Court’s decision to revoke Federal law does not affect State

laws outlawing gun possession on campus.

Forty States, including California,

have their own criminal statutes making gun possession on or near a school

a State crime.

California’s statute, signed into law

by Pete Wilson, makes possession of a

gun within 1,000 feet of a school a felony crime.

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994,

which I have strongly supported, was

passed last year in response to the increasing gun violence on school

grounds, and the failure of many

schools to respond clearly and forcefully to the presence of guns on campus.

In 1993, a Los Angeles high school

student was shot waiting in line for

lunch, and two other California high

school students were killed within a 1-

month period.

Over 100,000 guns are brought to

school each day, according to several

recent surveys and national projections.

There have been 105 violent schoolrelated deaths in just the last 2 years,

according to the Centers for Disease

Control—caused by guns, knives, and

other weapons.

In a nationwide survey, the CDC also

found that 1 in 12 students brought a

gun to school in 1993—up from 1 in 24

just three years before.

However, in too many school districts students who bring guns to

school are simply given a short suspension, counseling, or transferred to another school.

By requiring that offenders be expelled from the regular school program, the Gun-Free Schools Act mirrors policies in a growing number of

State education codes and urban school

district policies.

School violence—especially deadly

violence—must be the Nation’s top

educational priority.

Sixty-five students and six school

employees were shot and killed at U.S.

schools during 1985–90, according to the

Center To Prevent Hand Violence.

Without being safe in school, neither

teachers nor students can be expected

to focus on learning.

In conclusion, there must be no uncertainty about the status of the GunFree Schools Act of 1994. Gun possession on campus cannot be tolerated,

the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 remains in place, and in order to receive

Federal education funds every school

district in the Nation must soon have

in place and functioning a policy that

assures that any youngster who brings

a gun to school will be expelled for not

less than 1 year.

TULLAR BROTHERS NAMED KENTUCKY’S SMALL BUSINESS PERfSONS OF THE YEAR

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise

today to celebrate the accomplishments of two fellow Kentuckians who

exemplify the American entrepreneurial spirit. William and Michael Tullar

are brothers from Grand Rivers, KY,

who are being honored in our Nation’s

Capitol on May 2, 1995, as Kentucky’s

Small Business Persons of the Year by

the Small Business Administration.

The Tullars’ Livingston County business, known as Patti’s 1880s Settlement, began in 1977 as a six-room motel

and expanded to include Hamburger

Patti’s Ice Cream Parlor which was

named for the Tullars’ mother.

Over the last few years, Tullar Enterprises, Inc., has grown into a family retreat which reflects the historical heritage of the region. Log cabins purchased throughout Kentucky and Tennessee were restored and are used for

clothing boutiques, gift shops, and a

clubhouse for the settlement’s miniature golf attraction. In addition, the

Tullars have created a country escape

with landscaping that includes creeks

and waterfalls.

The Tullars were selected for this

honor on the basis of their staying

power, growth in number of employees,

increases in sales, current and past financial reports, their innovative ideas,

and their contributions to community

oriented projects. I am also pleased to

note that they were the Small Business

Administration’s 1994 Kentucky Blue

Chip Winners.

I applaud the Tullars’ can-do attitude

and their belief in running a first-rate

business. These qualities have earned

them distinction within Kentucky’s

small business community and I am

proud to witness their recognition at

the national level. My best to them on

this auspicious occasion and my wishes

for continued success.

TAKE OUR DAUGHTERS TO WORK

fDAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise

today to encourage girls and young

women throughout the Nation to aspire and work hard to make their

dreams a reality. In honor of national

Take Our Daughters to Work Day, I

have with me today my own daughter,

Sara.

When I was young, many women did

not work outside the home. The women

who did work were teachers, nurses,

and waitresses. Life has changed a lot

since then. Young women today have

more options and greater opportunities

than ever before. There are over 58 million working women in this country

today. There are 3.8 million women

working in jobs not traditionally held

by women—occupations such as engineering, medicine, mechanics, construction trades, farming, forestry, and

transportation. They are even Members

of the U.S. Senate.

Although it is encouraging to reflect

on the changes that have been made by

women since my childhood, I believe

that the job choices available to young

women today are not merely a matter

of luxury. The reality is that many of

our young women ultimately will be

responsible for the financial well-being

of their families. Women’s employment

is often critical to keeping families

above the poverty line. Children whose

mothers work are less likely to be

poor, whether they live with one parent or two.

The ability of young women to realize their goals of good paying, rewarding employment are hampered, however, by lack of involvement by parents

toward their child’s education. I was

reading the Seattle Times last Sunday,

and Erik Lacitis, a staff columnist for

the Times, suggested that parents visit

their child’s school, a sort of Take

Your Parent To School Day. Mr.

Lacitis comments that,

In talking to teachers over the years, what

they tell me is that a number of you [meaning parents] are strangers to your kid’s

schools * * * have you ever spent time in

their classrooms, say, volunteering to carry

out a project with the kids?

He ends his editorial by saying that

one of the best things that could happen to schools is the presence of parents in the classroom regularly.

I could not agree more. I wholeheartedly support the idea of taking a

child to work. I believe it is important

for young people to see what their parents, and role models, do for 8 hours or

more a day. It is important for us to

show them they can achieve the same

thing, and even more. However, I also

feel that we need to see and experience

what our children are doing for 8 hours

of their day. It would show our children that we care about what they are

learning in school, and would emphasize the importance of education in

achieving their long-range goals.

Mr. President, I feel that it is very

important for me as a woman, as a

mother, and a Member of the U.S. Congress to encourage girls and young

women throughout the Nation to realize their potential.

I never dreamed that I would become

an elected official, much less a U.S.

Senator. Today, I have the opportunity

to be a role model for my daughter

Sara and for other women across the

country. Young women need to understand that they don’t have to give up

one part of their lives for another.

Women should not have to choose between careers and families. I work long

hours for the citizens of my home
April 27, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5749

State of Washington as a U.S. Senator,

but also dedicate a lot of energy, caring, and love as a parent to my son and

daughter.

Today is an important day in America. Across this Nation, parents are

taking their daughters and other

young women to work. They are helping to broaden young women’s horizons, to show them the range of options available to them in the future.

I hope this day is a day when young

women everywhere recognize that if

they work hard and believe in themselves, they can be whoever they want

to be. I am a U.S. Senator today because I learned to face tough challenges with courage, to take risks, not

to be afraid to try, and to always

dream the impossible.

Finally, I would like daughters

across this Nation to remember a lesson I was taught early on: When others

say you can not make a difference,

they are usually just afraid you will.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, tomorTRIBUTE TO DAVID JOLLY

frow, in Missoula, MT, a man who has

done a great service for our Nation’s

national forests will be honored by his

friends, family, and colleagues. David

Jolly, the Regional Forester for the

U.S. Forest Service’s northern region,

is retiring after almost 34 years of public service.

Dave’s career in the forestry and natural resources field has been long and

distinguished. His work has taken him

around the country where he has lived

in eight States and in Washington, DC.

Dave was born in Knoxville, TN. He

grew up in a small town called Norris,

TN, where his father worked as an

economist for the Tennessee Valley

Authority’s Forestry Department

headquarters. In this environment,

Dave developed a great passion for forestry as a young boy. He completed a

pre-forestry program at the University

of Tennessee then went on to receive a

degree from North Carolina State in

forestry in 1961. During his college

years, Dave served his country in the

U.S. Naval Reserve.

Dave began his forestry career in the

summer of 1961 working as a research

aid for the Weyerhauser Co. in

Centralia, WA. Later that same year,

he got his first job with the U.S. Forest

Service as a forester on the Francis

Marion National Forest in South Carolina. From there, his career took off as

he went on to become district ranger

on the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas, then deputy forest supervisor

on the Ozark and St. Francis National

Forests in Arkansas.

In 1972, he furthered his education in

public policy at the University of

Washington, then went on to work in

the Forest Service’s southern regional

office in Atlanta. In 1976, he became

forest supervisor of the Shawnee National Forest in Illinois. In 1982, he became deputy director of the Forest

Service’s Timber Management Program in Washington, DC. From there

his career continued to flourish as he

became deputy regional forester, then

regional forester, of the agency’s

southwestern region overseeing the National Forests in Arizona and New

Mexico. In 1992, I am proud to say, he

came to Montana to oversee the northern region. This was no easy task managing such a vast region of forests and

rangeland in Montana and Idaho but

Dave did an exemplary job.

I personally came to gain a deep respect for Dave when the Department of

Agriculture last year announced its intention to close region 1. Dave played

no part in this misguided decision.

And, personally, I suspect he shares my

view that region 1 should remain open.

Yet Dave is a professional. He has

never let his personal views be known.

But he has done a first-rate job of communicating with me, region 1’s employees, and the people of Montana. He has

heard our concerns. He has provided

the best information possible. In short,

Dave Jolly is a class act.

I understand that Dave and his wife

Peggy share a love of Montana and the

great outdoors. I am pleased to hear

that they plan to stay in Montana for

awhile. Dave plans to do a lot of fishing

in his retirement—what better place

than Montana? I am sure than in between fishing trips, Dave will maintain

his lifelong interest in forestry. He is a

member of the Society of American

Foresters, Rotary International, and

the Society for Range Management. I

wish Dave and his family much happiness in the coming years.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week

CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS

fis Crime Victims’ Rights Week. It was

so designated by the President long before the devastating events in Oklahoma City last Wednesday. Our hearts

go out to the families and victims of

that terrible criminal act.

I know that the Attorney General

and entire Federal, State, local, and

international law enforcement community are dedicated to bringing those responsible for this heinous act to justice.

I rise today to commend those who

are working so hard on behalf of all

crime victims in crime victims’ assistance and compensation programs.

Over the last 15 years we have made

strides in recognizing crime victims’

rights and providing much needed assistance. I am proud to have played a

role in passage of the Victims and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, and the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of

1990 and the other improvements we

have been able to make.

Indeed, only last year, in the Violent

Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress

acted to make tens of millions of dollars available to crime victims. No

amount of money can make up for the

harm and trauma of being the victim of

a crime, but we should do all that we

can to see that victims are assisted,

compensated, and treated with dignity

by the criminal justice system.

With this in mind, I was shocked to

find that the House-passed legislation

that would devastate funding for crime

victims’ assistance programs and funding for child advocacy centers in the

so-called Personal Responsibility Act,

H.R. 4. Among the most important advances achieved over the last few years

has been our attention to crime victims. We need to do more, not less.

The House bill would have the effect

of reversing recent progress by prohibiting the use of the crime victims fund

for victims’ assistance. That is the effect of section 371(b)(2) of the Housepassed bill. Buried in the fine print in

a section entitled ‘‘other repealers’’ is

the end of the Federal Crime Victims’

Assistance Program. That is wrong and

I strenuously oppose such efforts.

We in the Senate should use this

week, Crime Victims’ Rights Week, to

declare our opposition to the House’s

short-sighted legislation. No one

should need a reminder of how important our crime victims’ assistance programs are.

For those who do, there is the recent,

tragic examples of the bombing of the

Oklahoma City Federal building and

the gut-wrenching events that occur

all too often in all too many of our

urban and rural jurisdictions throughout the country.

Recognizing appropriate rights of

crime victims is essential to securing

dignity and a proper place in the criminal justice process for crime victims

and their families. Last year, the Violent Crime Control Act included provisions to ensure a right of allocation for

victims of crimes of violence or sexual

abuse. This is the right to be heard at

sentencing, the opportunity for the

crime victim to speak to the court either directly or through a family member or legal representative. I fully support that addition to Federal law.

Indeed, I plan to introduce a bill that

would extend that right to all Federal

crimes.

TRIBUTE TO THE VICTIMS OF

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

fMrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President,

much has been said and written in the

last 8 days since the bombing in Oklahoma City. And we have all been

shocked and angered by the panoply of

images dominating our television

screens and newspapers.

One hundred and ten dead have so far

been recovered from the rubble, and

there is fear that many more lie beneath slabs of cement and twisted girders.

So many of those killed or injured

were public sector employees, and I believe we should take a moment to consider their sacrifice.

All too often, its easy to abuse those

who work in Government jobs. They

are called bureaucrats and accused of