May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1127

Starks is also a member of an organization,

100 Plus One Women for Congressman Louis

Stokes, which has benefited my congressional

efforts. I am proud to have her support of my

legislative activities.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Glenora Starks lives by

the adage, ‘‘Don’t ask God for strength to

move mountains—ask Him for strength to

climb mountains.’’ I take this opportunity to

recognize Mrs. Starks for her service to our

community. I am proud to welcome her to

Capitol Hill as my Congressional Senior Citizen Intern, and I am pleased to salute her on

this occasion.

SALUTE TO MR. BRETT J. BUSH

fHON. THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today

to pay tribute to Mr. Brett J. Bush, the 1995

recipient of the Union League’s Good Citizenship Award.

Upon his receipt of the Good Citizenship

Award, Brett was selected by the Freedom

Foundation to be a participant in the 1995

International Youth Leadership Conference

with over 250 other Union League Award winners. The conference was held May 11

through May 14, 1995 at the Freedom Foundation headquarters in Valley Forge PA.

Brett is a sophomore at Bishop McDevitt

High School in Wyncotte, PA. An honor student and athlete, Brett is involved in numerous

extra-curricular activates at Bishop McDevitt

High School. Additionally, Brett participates in

community volunteer work with the Super Kids

baseball program and the Fox Chase Cancer

Center.

I join Brett’s family, friends and teachers in

commending him for his excellent service to

his community. Brett is truly an inspiration to

us all in demonstrating the importance of hard

work and community service. I wish Brett the

best of luck in all his future endeavors.

BILL CLINTON RECORD

fHON. BILL RICHARDSON OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, during the

more than 2 years that President Clinton has

been in office, he has withstood a great deal

of criticism from an array of opponents. He

has been attacked from all directions. The

number of lies that have been told to tarnish

the President’s record has been astonishing.

But, President Clinton has not only survived

the attacks, he has excelled in his duties. This

isn’t just my opinion. This is the conclusion of

an outstanding nonpartisan article published in

the May edition of the Washington Monthly.

The article’s author, Daniel Franklin, compares President Clinton’s record with that of

President Truman. Mr. Franklin’s conclusion is

that, ‘‘Clinton’s first 2 years have put Truman’s

to shame.’’ Mr. Franklin cites many of President Clinton’s successes including his handling of the economy, the creation of 6 million

new jobs, his passage of numerous legislative

initiatives from the Family and Medical Leave

Act to a domestic Peace Corps, and his foreign triumphs from trade pacts to Haiti to the

Middle East peace process.

For those of my colleagues who have taken

the time in the past to criticize our President,

I urge you to take the time now to read this

fair, objective, nonpartisan analysis of the

President’s first 2 years in office. The article

which follows should be a must read for all

Americans.

[From the Washington Monthly, May 1995]

HE’S NO BILL CLINTON

(By Daniel Franklin)

It was tough year for the President. Foreign policy errors bogged down his domestic

programs; nominations were stonewalled by

a hostile Congress; party insiders even considered recruiting a challenger for the Democratic nomination. He was, in the words of

one journalist, ‘‘essentially indecisive * * *

essentially vacillating.’’ Quite simply, Americans began to doubt seriously that he had

the character to be the country’s top executive.

Yes, 1946 just wasn’t Harry Truman’s year.

But he bounced back, won reelection in 1948,

and has received from history a reverence

that borders on the Rushmoric. For many

Americans now, Truman is seen as a model

president—a man of integrity, modesty, and

decisiveness. Walter Isaacson of Time called

him ‘‘America’s greatest common-man president.’’ Eric Sevareid said that ‘‘Remembering him reminds people what a man in that

office ought to be like * * * . He stands like

a rock in memory now.’’ So revered is the

Man from Independence that in 1992, both

parties’ nominees fought to be considered

‘‘the Truman candidate.’’

Now that Republicans have both houses of

Congress for the first time since 1946, Clinton

aides are scanning David McCullough’s bestselling Truman biography in search of the

magic bullet that will hand Bill Clinton a

Trumanesque comeback in 1996. Clinton took

the Truman title in 1992, but now the country—and the press—is skeptical. ‘‘Bill Clinton,’’ wrote historian James Pinkerton in

the Los Angeles Times, ‘‘is no Harry Truman.’’

That’s true, but those White House staffers

looking for a magic bullet are missing the

point. Clear away the historical fogs and set

aside the acerbic press coverage and you cannot escape a startling conclusion: Clinton’s

first two years have put Truman’s to shame.

By April 1995, Clinton has accomplished far

more for the American people than ‘‘give ’em

hell’’ Harry had by April 1947. Clinton has

guided the economy more successfully. He

has enacted more laws with real impact. Yet

while Truman is held in near-Jeffersonian

regard, Bill Clinton is written off as a Warren Harding in jogging shorts.

Consider one of the core issues of any presidency: the economy. With the war over, the

country began the painful conversion to a

peacetime economy. Hundreds of thousands

of veterans returned from World War II to an

economy that had reached record production

levels without them. In Chicago alone, at

least 100,000 veterans were jobless. Major industries—including coal, railroad, and

steel—convulsed with labor strikes that

threatened to paralyze the entire country.

Truman’s response was heavy-handed and ineffectual. He threatened to seize coal mines

and draft striking railroad workers into the

military. Both measures were rebuffed by

the Supreme Court and Congress, respectively, for being blatantly unconstitutional.

The economy grew but the growth was

more than overshadowed by inflation rates

that soared to 14.6 percent in 1947. There

were shortages in many of the products people needed, including housing, automobiles,

sugar, coffee, and meat. And with the Great

Depression fresh in the American memory,

many wondered whether another economic

crash, one even greater than before, was just

around the corner.

Truman could have prevented the inflation. After the war, Republicans in Congress

launched an effort to repeal wartime price

controls. Truman saw that decontrol had to

be gradual, so that it would not unleash inflation. But, as The New Republic’s ‘‘TRB’’

columnist wrote in 1946, ‘‘The trouble is,

Truman didn’t make a real fight. . . . He

didn’t carry through. . . . He saw and predicted the recession but let Congress and

business have their way. Truman won the argument all right, but that isn’t quite enough

in politics.’’

Clinton knows this. He is the first president in the last 30 years to achieve both job

growth and low inflation. The ‘‘misery

index’’—inflation plus unemployment—is

currently below nine; under Bush it was

above 11; under Truman it was nearly 20.

The key to this achievement is Clinton’s

budget plan, which passed through Congress

in 1993 only after a knock-down, drag-out

fight led by the President—a fight won with

only the votes of fractious Democratic party,

and against a vehement and united Republican front. Phil Gramm was one of the loudest critics, predicting that ‘‘hundreds of

thousands of Americans will lose their jobs

because of this bill.’’

Gramm was dead wrong. By cutting the

deficit to $192 billion in 1995, from $290 billion just three years ago, the President has

succeeded in bringing down long-term interest rates and encouraging business investment that has stimulated extraordinary job

growth. Already, the economy has produced

nearly six million new jobs—five million

more than it did during Bush’s entire term.

The unemployment rate, which was 7.6 percent when Clinton took office, has dropped

to 5.5 percent.

In his first two years as president, Truman

never seemed to have the stomach to enter

the ring and fight like Clinton has. In September 1945, Truman delivered a 21-point

program to Congress that rivaled the New

Deal in its scope. The plan increased federal

funding to agriculture, housing programs,

and a variety of public works projects. But

Truman let nearly every major component of

his domestic program go down in defeat

without a fight. In a way, says McCullough,

that was the point. ‘‘His whole strategy on

these domestic issues was to go for the high

ground. Be more liberal in the program, and

if they knock it down, you’ll have something

to run on.’’

This is fine if your only concern is winning

reelection, not so fine if you want to solve

the country’s problems. Clinton has staked

his presidency on the passage of his economic and social programs and fought like a

junkyard dog for his victories. Elizabeth

Drew recounts in On the Edge that during

the battle to pass the North American Free

Trade Agreement, ‘‘Clinton threw himself

into the fight—meeting members of Congress

in one-on-one sessions, making many phone

calls to them, giving speeches, meeting with

opinion leaders, meeting with individual

members. Shortly before the vote, there were

White House dinners for undecideds.’’ He

brought the same energy and conviction to

the fight to pass the Global Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade. Clinton was willing to alienate the labor interests that are among the

Democrats’ strongest constituents because

he believed that the treaty would produce

jobs for the country. Regardless of your

opinion of these treaties, you must respect
E 1128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 25, 1995

the fact that he risked his neck to get them

passed.

Clinton has stuck to the path of ambitious

achievement throughout his presidency and

tried to avoid the partisan posturing that

might serve him better at the polls. His success, by any objective measure, has been astonishing. Eighty-six percent of the legislation he endorsed has passed through Congress, a record unmatched by any president

since Johnson.

The bills he has passed will make real contributions to the welfare of millions upon

millions of Americans. Take education policy. While the economy has changed, putting

a higher premium on education and skills,

the American education system hasn’t. Everyone knows that a high school diploma no

longer guarantees a good job. But before

Clinton took office, high school graduates

who did not go on to college—nearly 40 percent—were stranded because the United

States was the only major industrial nation

without a vocational apprenticeship program.

Clinton’s Schools-to-Work program created a network of apprenticeship programs

to give those students real job skills that

can’t be learned in high school. The students

intern with workers—electricians, plumbers,

carpenters—and learn the skills needed to

find and keep a job. When the program

reaches full implementation, one-half million students will be enrolled annually.

That’s one-half million more skilled workers

entering the workforce every year than before the program.

To counter the staggering growth in college tuition, Clinton reformed the student

loan program so it would lend money directly to college students, and collect the

debt as a percentage of their income. Previously, students received their college loans

through banks and paid back a set amount

for 10 years. From 1985 to 1991, the size of the

average college graduate’s total debt had

jumped 150 percent. For many, the debt was

stifling; 40 percent of graduates said their

debt payments forced them to work two jobs.

But under Clinton’s plan, defaults will be

cut drastically because the debt payments,

extended over a 25-year-period and based on

the graduate’s income, are manageable. A

graduate with a $30,000 income and a $50,000

debt will pay $345 per month, instead of the

$581 under the previous plan. As graduates’

salaries rise, so do the amounts of their debt

payments. As a result, graduates are able to

perform low-paying but meaningful work,

such as teaching or social work, that the

country desperately needs.

Then there’s Americorps. While Republicans seek to slash this domestic Peace

Corps, 20,000 volunteers are on the streets

immunizing babies, restoring national parks,

and counseling troubled teens. For their 10-

to 12-month commitment, the volunteers

earn vouchers worth $4,725 toward tuition or

for paying off student loans. And, carried out

properly, the program has the potential to

radically change the way Americans view

community and national service. ‘‘It provides what might be called a social glue,’’ argues Labor Secretary Robert Reich, ‘‘by

bringing young people from all different

backgrounds and incomes together to work

on community projects, and enhance the

health and safety or beauty of a community.

It not only improves community but it creates community * * * connecting people to

other people across socioeconomic barriers.’’

Truman’s contribution to equal opportunity and economic fairness—the heart of

the Democratic Party—was meager during

the first two years of his term. Yet again, his

proposals that did aim to aid the poor—unemployment compensation, minimum wage

increases, and housing funds—were all abandoned to high-minded defeat in Congress. As

with his economic programs, and in stark

contrast to Clinton, Truman refused to enter

the fray. ‘‘I don’t think,’’ says Stanford historian Barton Bernstein, ‘‘Truman really

committed himself,’’

Even Clinton’s harshest critics must grant

that the President is committed to economic

fair play. An that commitment has led him

to push through a program that gave significant help to the most deserving group of society: the 3.2 million working poor, who are

struggling to break themselves out of the

cycle of poverty. The Earned Income Tax

Credit (EITC) guarantees that any person

working 40 hours a week, even at minimum

wage, will not fall below the poverty line.

Whereas earlier a mother of two may have

received more money by staying on welfare

and other aid programs, the EITC goes a long

way toward making work more profitable

than the social dole. Thus, without any of

the messy bureaucracies that rankle conservatives, Clinton made the road out of poverty substantially easier. And to pay for his

deficit-reduction program and the EITC,

Clinton wisely raised taxes on the very rich,

who have benefited most from this country

and can afford to give something back.

Nearly as significant has been Clinton’s

fight to reform and expand Head Start. Nearly one out of every five children in the country lives in poverty. Head Start takes poor

children as young as three years old and

gives them pre-school education, immunizations, healthy meals, and other services.

Clinton increased federal funding by nearly

50 percent from 1992, and added 100,000 children to the program’s rolls. And Clinton

moved to address the deficiencies in individual Head Start programs by instituting rigid

quality standards. If a program does not

meet the standards, the government can cut

its funding and find a more worthy recipient.

Even if Congress fails to pass a single line of

welfare reform legislation, between the EITC

and Head Start reforms, Clinton will have

made one of the more significant contributions to social policy in decades.

And let’s not forget Clinton’s efforts to

solve what many consider the most serious

and vexing of America’s problems: crime.

Amid the partisan attacks and counterattacks, which the press recorded faithfully,

the clear benefits of the President’s bill were

lost. Even the most conservative estimates

say that the bill will put around 20,000 more

police officers on the nation’s streets

through support to community policing programs. And the $8.8 billion that Clinton’s bill

allocates to prisons will help ensure that violent criminals are not forced back on the

streets due to overcrowding.

Clinton is also the first president in history to have the courage to take on the 800-

pound gorilla of special interests: the National Rifle Association. The organization is

the ninth-largest PAC in the country, donating nearly $2 million to congressional campaigns in 1994. For years their money and

ability to mobilize their 3.3 million members

led many to consider them the single most

powerful interest group in Washington. For

the past 25 years, their friends in Congress

have stalled the banning of armor-piercing

bullets and assault weapons. But Clinton has

defied the gun lobby, including in his crime

bill a provision that bans 19 different kinds

of assault weapons. He also passed the Brady

Bill, which requires five-day waiting periods

for all gun purchases so background checks

can be conducted. The law, which had been

stonewalled by the NRA’s congressional

proxies since it was first introduced in 1986,

prevented 44,000 convicted felons—and 2,000

fugitives—from purchasing weapons in the

first year of its enactment.

Other domestic triumphs? The President

early in 1993 passed the Family and Medical

Leave Act, which ensures that family members who take time off from work to care for

a newborn child or a sick relative will have

their jobs waiting for them when they return.

And his ‘‘Reinventing Government’’ initiative has had several notable successes, such

as the elimination of over 1,200 field offices

of the bloated and overextended Department

of Agriculture. Perhaps no government function is more burdened by red tape than the

government procurement process. Before the

President’s plan, buying an office computer

could take as much as three months of wading through the swamp of regulations that

nearly doubled the retail cost of computers.

Now a government worker can go to a computer store and buy one off the shelf like

anyone else. This may sound picayune until

you realize that 70 to 80 percent of government acquisitions are small, everyday purchases like these. And it is only through this

concern for government reform, for which

Clinton is unique among recent presidents,

that government will begin to work under

the guidelines of common sense.

One of the most lasting legacies of any

president is the lifetime appointments he

makes to the nation’s highest court. In this,

too, Clinton outshines Truman. Stephen

Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg breezed through

Senate confirmation with bipartisan support

both on Capitol Hill and within the legal

community and are universally hailed as

being pragmatic, intelligent, and moderate.

‘‘These two have helped calm the waters and

soothe what had been an inflamed Supreme

Court process—inflamed by Bork, inflamed

by Thomas,’’ says Yale Law Professor Akhil

Amar. ‘‘The long-term stability of the Court

and the Republic is not well served by confirmation donny-brooks and spectacles.’’ In

his first two years, Truman nominated Fred

Vinson and Harold Burton, two men whose

mark on the Supreme Court was far from exemplary. It was Chief Justice Vinson who,

with Burton’s assent, delivered one of the

most damaging blows to the First Amendment in the Court’s history. The Dennis v.

United States decision, written by Vinson,

declared that even the teaching of communism was illegal and punishable by imprisonment.

Truman himself didn’t have the most pristine record on civil liberties. He instituted

the Federal Employees Loyalty Program,

which directed the FBI and the Civil Service

Commission to weed out those federal employees suspected of communist or socialist

activities. As a result, 212 federal employees

were dismissed; thousands more resigned in

protest or fear. It was, writes McCullough,

‘‘the most reprehensible political decision of

his presidency.’’

It had its competitors. Under Truman,

Navy ships were ordered to sail into the fallout zone around Bikini Island after a nuclear

weapons test. When the tragic effects of the

test were brought to Truman, he decided to

keep them secret for fear the embarrassment

would hurt the country’s nuclear programs—

and his reelection changes. This set an ugly

precedent: In succeeding years, the government tested the effects of radioactivity on

humans and then covered it up.

By marked contrast, it was under Clinton

that the government began an active effort

to reveal incidents ostensibly classified for

national security, but actually hidden to

prevent political embarrassments. And it has

been under Clinton that the government has

finally made a concerted effort to make reparations to the victims of the nuclear tests.

In general, Truman steered clear of the nation’s dealings with nuclear issues. In one

cabinet meeting, Truman admitted to not
May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1129

knowing, and not wanting to know, the exact

number of nuclear weapons in the country’s

arsenal. ‘‘ Mr. President, you should know,’’

said Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace.

But Truman kept his distance, leaving nuclear arms production to the military and

Atomic Energy Commission.

Once again, it is Clinton who has stepped

up to plate and explained the extent of the

mess: It will take, the administration announced, 70 years and between $230 and $350

billion to clean up the toxic waste produced

by the production of nuclear arms.

You do not have to stop at our shores to

come to the conclusion that Clinton has thus

far outshone Truman. The great foreign policy decisions attributed to Truman, remember, did not come until later in his term. In

the spring of 1947, the country was reeling

from the succession of communist victories.

Every Eastern European country had fallen

to communism except Czechoslovakia, which

would not be far behind. China’s fall to communism was imminent. And with the reckless use of its veto in the United Nations, the

Soviet Union was halting American efforts

to shape the post-war world. The United

States, it seemed, was on the ropes.

Meanwhile, Clinton’s foreign policy,

though ridiculed mercilessly by Republicans,

has been, on the whole, refreshingly successful. The passage of NAFTA and GATT were

hard-fought and significant victories. Other

successes have been jawdroppers. Answer me

this: If you were told two years ago that Israel would sign peace agreements with the

PLO and Jordan; that Haiti would have a

democratically elected president; that there

would be a cease-fire in Northern Ireland;

and that the third-largest nuclear power in

the world would voluntarily disarm its nuclear capability, what would you say? That’s

what I thought.

All four developments, to varying extents,

can be credited to a foreign policy team that

has been derided as hopelessly incompetent.

The success has even impressed Owen Harries, editor of the conservative National Interest. ‘‘The charge against the Clinton Administration has been that it is all show and

no substance,’’ Harries wrote in The New Republic. ‘‘But the opposite may be nearer the

mark.... [S]ome sensible decisions have been

made and some dangers avoided. It could

have been a lot worse if the advice given by

many of the people now criticizing Clinton

had been followed.’’

Take Ukraine, a newborn Soviet successor

state with a government considerably less

than stable, which suddenly found itself

holding the third-largest arsenal of nuclear

weapons in the world. Clinton, Gore, and

Secretary of State Warren Christopher pressured and cajoled the country to abandon its

hopes of becoming a nuclear power. Under

this constant pressure. Ukraine agreed last

November to dismantle its 1,800 nuclear warheads. Kazakhstan and Belarus, with considerably smaller nuclear forces, followed suit,

giving the world three less nuclear nightmares to worry about.

In the Middle East, the first praise for

peace accords certainly goes to the major

players: Israel, the PLO, and Jordan. But the

Clinton Administration deftly walked a very

fine line: Israel would never have agreed to

the deal without a strong friend in Washington, while the Palestinians and Jordanians

would have balked if they felt the administration was one-sided or unfair to their concerns. It is a testament to the trust won

from both sides that the peace treaty was

signed on the White House lawn.

Most pundits felt that democracy in Haiti

was a pipe dream. Bush hemmed and hawed

as the military junta settled in and terrorized the Haitian people; thousands fled to the

United States. But Clinton’s policy, despite

messy appearances, has led to the bloodless

overthrow of a military dictatorship and the

restoration of that country’s first democratically elected president.

And in an effort to bring an end to the decades-long fighting in Northern Ireland, Clinton has stood up to England (our ‘‘special relationship’’ notwithstanding) to force it to

deal with its troubles in Northern Ireland.

When in 1993 Clinton agreed to grant a visa

to Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to visit the

United States for the first time, British legislators openly insulted the President, saying that America had betrayed its trust. But

over British objections, Clinton has allowed

Adams to return twice more to meet with

the administration and continue the push for

peace. Eight months into the cease-fire,

Clinton’s persistence has paid off in lives.

True, there is no ‘‘Clinton Doctrine’’ by

which to measure every foreign policy question that comes down the pike. It would no

doubt make things easier if there were. But

simple doctrines work in simple worlds.

Presidents from Truman to Reagan could

vow to fight communism wherever it reared

its head. Whether or not they met their

promise, they at least had the pose.

Clinton, then, is being penalized because

there is no mortal threat to the country. The

vast majority of armed conflicts in the world

today are either civil wars or ethnic conflicts. No simple formula applies. The process has at times seemed messy, but in a subtle and deft fashion, Clinton has loosened

diplomatic knots of Gordian complexity.

Truman went on, of course, to make some

the shrewdest and politically courageous decisions of the century: the Marshall Plan in

the summer of 1947; the desegregation of the

military in 1948; and the Berlin Airlift that

same year, which, without provoking war

with the Soviet Union, broke the blockade of

West Berlin. While pundits hang the lameduck tag on Clinton, they ignore that if Clinton maintains this pace, and continues to

better Truman domestically and abroad,

Americans could see an enormously successful presidency.

Similarly, the predictions that Clinton has

no chance in 1996 miss a crucial point. Like

Truman, Clinton has an uncanny ability to

project an empathy with the American people. Truman was profoundly unpopular at

this point in his first term. In November of

1946, his approval ratings stood at 32 percent.

But in 1948, voters compared the warmth and

humility of Truman to the arrogance of

Thomas Dewey and chose the man they felt

cared most about their problems. By this

standard, Bill Clinton will never suffer from

comparison to a man like, for example, Phil

Gramm. Clinton could still pull off that

Trumanesque comeback, and those who wish

to make parallels between the Man from

Independence and the Man from Hope will

have one more comparison to draw.

CLEAN WATER ACT AMENDMENTS

fHON. FRANK RIGGS OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased

that the House approved amendment No. 66

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

1995, without objection. Under its terms, municipal wastewater reuse facilities that utilize

advanced treatment will be added to the existing section 404(f) activities not requiring permits. By facilitating the regulatory process for

those cities that have treated wastewater to a

high degree, the effect of the amendment will

be to encourage the use of properly treated

wastewater to restore degraded wetlands and

create new wetlands.

In specifying municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the amendment, I was not implying that other, nonmunicipal wastewater

reuse activities that utilize advanced treatment

for similar purposes now require a permit

under the act if exempted by other provisions.

My amendment does not affect those other

provisions of the Clean Water Act. Thus

wastewater reuse facilities which have long

been exempt, such as those operated successfully by the forest products industry, would

continue to be exempt from the permit process.

HONORING ESSAY WINNERS

fHON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, one of the

pleasures of serving in this body is the opportunity we occasionally get to recognize truly

outstanding and talented citizens of this country. Today, I am especially pleased to recognize the winners of the fifth annual drug avoidance essay contest.

The first place winners are Tracey Barnes of

PS 93, Gloria Milan of PS 380, Jessica Schumer of PS 230, Aisha Matthew of PS 138,

Danielle Moseley of PS 244, Shameka Jackson-Barrington of PS 214, Michael Falanga of

PS 205, Alexis Legister of PS 139 Annex,

Bryan Small of PS 327, Jennifer Fringo of PS

86K. I am also pleased to acknowledge the

runners up: Radiance Salem of PS 11, Latoya

Sanabria of PS 257, Iasia Holloway of PS

124, Grace Berry of PS 221, Lauren Stambler

of PS 114, Jamece Grey of PS 149, Meghan

O’Brien of PS 127, Michael Albala of PS 206,

Stacy Adams of PS 298, Joseph Williams of

PS 75K, Glenfield Browne of PS 305,

Charnise Sutton of PS 297, Enas Ahmed of

PS 131, Blas Brown of PS 167, Tristan Brathwaite of PS 268, Giselle Cabon of PS 158,

Lyndsay Adesso of PS 204, Jason Wilk of PS

312, Candice McMeans of PS 73, Juan

Arcena of PS 384K.

Reading over the essays I cannot help but

think of how wise these young students are.

They know the terrible cost of drugs on individuals, families, cities and our country. These

essays challenge us to do better by out children; they deserve to grow up in a safe, drugfree environment. I know my colleagues in the

House of Representatives will join me both in

congratulating the winners and runners up of

the drug-free essay contest, and in wishing

them the best of luck in the future.

RESCISSION BILL VETO THREAT

fHON. RON PACKARD OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, despite his

rhetoric, the President obviously cares nothing

about balancing the budget. He leaves a conspicuous open seat at the budget cutting