E 1046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 16, 1995

nearly 2,000 members in several States. The

APUMEC continues to provide these services

and has expanded to provide others, such as

the scholarship program which awards scholarships each year to qualified students.

Margaret Montero is currently the 70th supreme president of the APUMEC. She joined

APUMEC Council No. 4 ‘‘Progresso’’ on February 4, 1967, and has served as an officer

since 1970. She is the third member of her

family to hold the office of supreme president.

Margaret’s late brother-in-law, Jose ́ (Joe) J.

Montero was supreme president from 1930 to

1932. Her daughter, Jackie Montero Flynn,

served as supreme president from 1973 to

1974. She and her daughter are the first mother and daughter supreme presidents of the

APUMEC.

Ms. Montero was born on May 28, 1915, in

Honolulu, HA. She has been a resident of the

bay area for over 60 years. She owned a business with her now deceased husband, Mr.

Joaquim (Harry) Montero, to whom she was

married for 45 years, and she still resides in

the city of San Leandro, CA. She has one

daughter, Jackie Montero Flynn, one stepson,

John Lewis Montero; three grandson; and two

great grandchildren.

Ms. Montero has also served as a member

of many other community organizations, including the IDES, ISMM, SES, SPRSI,

UPPEC, UPEC, the Brotherhood of St. Anthony, the Cabrillo Civic Clubs of California,

and the ICDES. She is also a representative

to the Portuguese Fraternal Benefit Societies

of California.

Ms. Montero will finish her term on June 20,

1995. During her tenure as supreme president, she brought in a total of $575,000 in

policies and over 85 new members to the society. This is a significant contribution to the

organization. But perhaps even more significant is the tireless dedication she has brought

to the APUMEC for the 28 years that she has

participated in the organization.

Today, I want to congratulate Margaret

Montero on her successful term as supreme

president and recognize her for her commitment to the APUMEC and to the entire Portuguese community, I wish her much happiness in the years to come.

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CLEAN

WATER ACT

f

HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN OF ARKANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

express my disappointment with provisions

added at the last minute to H.R. 961, the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995. The bill

made an honest effort to correct some of the

problems with the current Act. However, while

I supported some of the strong elements of

the bill, including the wetlands and the private

property provisions, I could not, with good

conscience, support the final amended bill.

During consideration of H.R. 961, the House

approved an amendment that altered the allocation formula under the State Revolving Fund

[SRF]. Under this new formula, the less industrialized States, like Arkansas, received significantly less money than they currently receive.

The base bill contained a more equitable approach in its treatment of the allocation formula, but the amendment adopted by the

House gutted the original agreement reached

by the committee.

Last year Arkansas received nearly $15 million under the SRF allocation. Under the

amended bill, Arkansas would receive $8 million—a 42 percent reduction.

Arkansas has a well run SRF program,

leveraging two times the amount of its SRF

funding. Last year, Arkansas leveraged nearly

$30 million from its $15 million allocation. The

severe reduction in the amended bill not only

reflects a $7 million reduction of federal obligated dollars, but it also adversely affects Arkansas’ ability to leverage more funds. The

bill’s cut in fact represents a $14 million total

loss in funds that could be used to finance

much needed wastewater treatment plants

and infrastructure needs throughout the State.

With the many Federal requirements imposed

on our communities, they need the capital to

comply with these national mandates.

Again, there were many provisions in the bill

that I support, including relief for farmers

under the wetlands and nonpoint source sections and small system hardship loans. However, when this bill pits Arkansas against other

States in fighting for essential funds, I could

not abandon Arkansas’ needs in developing its

clean water infrastructure.

I hope that the chairman and other Members involved in the negotiations with the Senate will press on in their obligation to consider

this equity issue during the conference and resolve this unacceptable situation for Arkansas

and 28 other States that lost SRF funding

under the new allocation scheme. I would like

to have a bill that I could support on behalf of

my farmers and my rural constituents.

IN MEMORY OF EDWARD V.

fROBERTS

HON. RONALD V. DELLUMS OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise to remember the late

Edward V. Roberts, the father of the independent living movement and cofounder of the

World Institute on Disability. Mr. Roberts

passed from this life on March 14, 1995, at his

home in Berkeley, CA, at the age of 56.

Mr. Roberts undeniably exemplified the epitome of what people with disabilities can accomplish with the right attitude, individual

empowerment, and mutual support. The

undefeatable Mr. Roberts laid the groundwork

for disabled rights as he pursued his dream of

liberation and education. His lifelong battle for

the rights of the disabled began in high school

when he vigorously challenged his school principal who balked at granting Roberts a diploma because the teenager had not completed the required physical education

courses. Polio left Roberts a quadriplegic at

age 14. Roberts, unable to move below the

neck and dependent on an iron lung to

breathe, was deemed ‘‘severely disabled’’ and

‘‘unemployable,’’ according to a counselor at

the California State Department of Rehabilitation. Convinced that he could defeat the odds,

Roberts never accepted the idea that disabled

people could not when the rest of society

could. He pursued his educational objectives

with this idea in mind. After winning the battle

to obtain his high school diploma, Roberts

went on to earn a bachelor’s degree and a

master’s degree. He was the first severely disabled student to attend and be housed on

campus at the University of California, Berkeley. While there, Mr. Roberts helped fellow

students organize into a self-help group whose

services included free counseling, off-campus

housing referrals, and a repair crew whose expertise was wheelchairs. He also led the lobbying effort for dorm housing for the disabled

and eventually secured Federal money to establish the first ever Physically Disabled Students Program at the university. This was just

the beginning of Mr. Robert’s legacy to people

with disabilities.

Committed to increasing the freedom of

people with disabilities to live and work like

other people and in response to increased demands for the services provided under the

auspices of the Disabled Student’s Program,

in 1972, Mr. Roberts helped found the Center

for Independent Living in Berkeley. The program was the first of its kind to be designed,

developed, organized and managed by and for

the disabled to achieve the best quality life

possible. It became a national model for people with disabilities because it documented

and resolved some of the basic problems of

people with disabilities attempting to live independently with such essentials as personal

care, modified living space, transportation, and

wheelchair-accessible ramps and curbs. While

at the center, Roberts successfully campaigned for the removal of Federal laws that

were designed to keep the disabled out of

school and work environments. His ideas were

turned into law in the Rehabilitation Act of

1973. There are now some 400 independent

living centers throughout the United States

based on the Berkeley model demonstrating

independent living with accommodations.

Once again, Mr. Roberts scored a permanent

mark for the disabled, transforming the way

everyone thinks and acts toward the disabled

and paving the way for the integration of the

disabled into all forms of society.

Mr. Robert’s longtime efforts and visions received affirmation when Governor Jerry Brown

appointed Roberts to head the California Department of Rehabilitation in 1975. Roberts

was the first California State director of rehabilitation with a physical disability. His presence alone at the agency, the same agency

that sided with the University of California in

denying Roberts admittance to Berkeley because the school had never had a whellchairconfined student who required a respirator and

iron lung, helped many understand the needs

of the disabled seeking independence. With a

staff of more than 2,500 and budget of $140

million, Roberts implemented the independent

living programs on the State level and established a national network of independent living

centers. The independent living movement

soon went national. Roberts’ efforts to change

disabled rights dramatically influenced policies

that are in place today. Mr. Roberts was determined to change the whole system and move

away from old ideas about the capabilities of

the disabled.

In 1984, Mr. Roberts received a $225,000

MacArthur Foundation award. Using this grant,

he cofounded the Oakland-based World Institute on Disability [WID], to carry the philosophy of independent living into the national
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1047

arena. This organization, an influential think

tank on disabled policy and research issues, is

dedicated to eliminating handicappism through

equity of opportunity, institutionalizing the full

participation of the disabled within our society

and ensuring economic parity for the disabled.

Under Roberts, the organization conducted research and training on major policy issues,

formulated new approaches to disabilities that

are based on real-life emergencies and needs,

began a disabled youth summer jobs and internship project, encouraged small businesses

to identify barriers faced by the disabled and

lobbied for small business loans for the disabled. His lobbying efforts gave rise to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, section 504, and other important access laws for

the disabled. Carrying his message of independent living, Mr. Roberts traveled worldwide

pushing his message for disabled rights in Africa, Australia, Russia, El Salvador, and

Japan, just to name a few.

Edward V. Roberts positively changed the

perceptions of a whole society and revolutionized society’s idea of what persons with disabilities could be. As a role model and leader

with a vision, Roberts was committed to building an environment that supports the independence of people with disabilities. Roberts

plotted his course early and never veered from

his chartered path. He inaugurated a civil

rights movement that changed the life of every

disabled person and the structure of nearly

every street and building in this Nation.

Though there are no monuments to the man

who launched the disabilities rights movement,

we must recognize Mr. Roberts as the man

who tried to build a dream that we all could

share, now and in all generations to come. We

will all morn this loss.

ALDRICH AMES SPY CASE

fHON. LARRY COMBEST OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, on November

30, 1994, the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence issued its report on the Aldrich

Ames espionage case. Among the findings of

that report was the fact that ‘‘the CIA failed to

keep the oversight committees fully and currently informed’’ about the case ‘‘despite several instances of pointed questioning by Committee members. The lack of notification extended to the end: Neither the CIA nor the FBI

advised the oversight committees of the investigation until shortly before Ames’ arrest.’’

This chilling finding left unanswered the

question as to why the oversight committees

had not been kept informed, as the law requires: Was it a witting coverup or inadvertent? Although neither answer would be comforting, the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence deemed it necessary to close out

this unanswered question with regard to the

Ames case.

Despite the heavy press of business the

committee’s staff and Members made this a

priority at the outset of this Congress. After

extensive work by the staff and a review by

the committee, the committee voted unanimously on May 11, 1995, to release the following statement:

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE ALDRICH

AMES SPY CASE

On February 21, 1994, Aldrich Ames was arrested and charged with violating U.S. espionage laws and spying for the former Government of the Soviet Union and the Government of Russia. Since that date, the Committee has conducted an aggressive inquiry

to determine what went wrong in the Ames

case and how to fix it. In November 1994, we

issued an exhaustive report that had specific

recommendations for remedial action. The

Intelligence Community and the FBI have

taken significant steps to address problems

we highlighted in our report. The remedial

actions have had a positive effect on counterintelligence issues.

One issue, in particular, surfaced during

our inquiry that necessitated additional follow-up: that is, whether the CIA violated

Section 502 of the National Security Act of

1947 and whether that violation was intentional. Section 502 requires that the Congress be informed of ‘‘all intelligence activities . . . including . . . any significant intelligence failure.’’ At a full committee hearing

on February 7, 1995, and in correspondence

with this committee, Acting Director of

Central Intelligence Admiral Studeman has

stated that the CIA failed to meet this statutory obligation.

The CIA’s admission of its violation of Section 502 led us to the next question, whether

this failure was intentional. The Committee

has interviewed a wide range of current and

former CIA officials involved in the Ames

case. We also reviewed the voluminous reporting that we have received on the Ames

case. This examination produced no evidence

that any former Director of Central Intelligence, Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, or Deputy Director for Operations

made a decision to withhold information

about the loss of Soviet assets in 1985 and

1986 and the resulting investigation from

this Committee.

At lower levels of the CIA, where the counterintelligence investigation was being conducted, it appears that no one ever thought

to bring this matter to the Committee’s attention. Five Members of this Committee

asked precisely the right questions about espionage problems at CIA during the CIA’s

own investigation: former Chairman Anthony Beilenson; two ranking Members, Representatives Henry Hyde and Bud Shuster;

and two Committee members, Representative Dick Cheney and Larry Combest. At a

minimum, what is clear is that, at certain

levels, CIA officials did not understand the

requirements of the law. The CIA is taking

steps to ensure that all employees are aware

of Section 502. Moreover, it is important to

note that it is not the responsibility of the

Committee ‘‘to ask the right questions.’’ The

onus lies with the Intelligence Community

to be forthcoming vis-a-vis its oversight responsibilities.

The Committee is taking the following additional actions:

We have prepared a letter for the new DCI,

John Deutch, drawing his attention to Section 502 and the transcript of the February 7,

1995 hearing. We are confident that the new

DCI will be vigilant in ensuring that the

mandates of Section 502 are followed. Notification is not merely a matter of law, but is

also a matter of common sense. Senior CIA

officials must bring matters to the attention

of the Congress when there is any ‘‘significant intelligence failure.’’ This raises the

corollary issue of ensuring that all officers of

the CIA understand that they will be held accountable for the management of their operations, as Admiral Studeman has already informed personnel of the CIA. The new DCI

has also pledged to make accountability a

focus of his management policies.

The Committee has a continuing interest

in the Ames case. A full briefing on the results of the Intelligence Community’s damage assessment will be received later this

year. Following that briefing, the Committee will determine if there is additional legislative or other remedial action that is required.

The Committee will also continue to monitor the counterintelligence reforms that

have been put in place by the CIA, the Intelligence Community and the FBI to ensure

that there is no backsliding on this matter.

MEDICARE DEPENDENT HOSPITAL

RELIEF ACT OF 1995

f

HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday May 16, 1995

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce timely legislation that will allow Medicare dependent hospitals, defined as hospitals

with Medicare patient loads of 60 percent or

more, to be reimbursed more fairly under the

Prospective Payment System [PPS]. These

hospitals, both rural and urban, have significantly higher Medicare losses and lower overall Medicare margins than other hospitals. This

disparity threatens the viability of these hospitals and the access to, and the quality of,

care for Medicare beneficiaries.

This legislation, which I am introducing in

conjunction with my good friend from Florida,

Senator BOB GRAHAM, is titled the Medicare

Dependent Hospital Relief Act of 1995. To

remedy the problem facing Medicare dependent hospitals, this bill includes three main provisions. First, Medicare dependent hospitals

will be statutorily defined as hospitals with

Medicare patients loads representing 60 percent or more of total patient days. Second,

each year the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission [ProPAC] will compute, and

the Health Care Financing Administration

[HCFA] will implement, separate PPS updates

for Medicare dependent hospitals and other

hospitals. The update for Medicare dependent

hospitals will have to make the average Medicare loss for those hospitals equal to the average Medicare loss for all hospitals. The computation and implementation will be budget

neutral, thus this bill will not create additional

costs. Third, ProPAC’s annual report to Congress will include recommendations to ensure

that beneficiaries served by Medicare dependent hospitals retain the same access and quality of care as Medicare hospital patients nationwide.

The need for this legislation is simple. Between 1983 and 1988, Medicare phased in the

PPS to replace cost-based reimbursements

with prospective, or pre-determined, payments

to contain costs and encourage efficiency.

Various PPS adjustments have produced wide

variations in hospital profits and losses from

Medicare. Medicare dependent hospitals, as a

group, have been at a distinct disadvantage.

While hospitals on average lose 2.73 percent

on their Medicare business, Medicare dependent hospitals lose much more: on average,

those Medicare dependent hospitals with 60–

64 percent Medicare loads lose 4.57 percent,

while those with 65 percent or greater Medicare loads lose 5.45 percent. Medicare dependent hospitals have less ability to offset