EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1119

IN MEMORY OF EVELYN

CHRISTINE HALL

HON. BOBBY L. RUSH OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with

great sadness to ask my colleagues to join me

in honoring Evelyn Christine Hall who passed

from this life on April 16, 1995, at the age of

60.

Evelyn Hall was born on November 8, 1934,

in Covington, TN. Fondly referred to as ‘‘Mickey,’’ Evelyn was a loving wife, mother, and

friend who touched the hearts of many.

After completing high school in 1952, Evelyn

moved to Chicago where she met her husband, Johnnie Marshall Hall. To this union

were born five loving children, two sons and

three daughters. She was employed by the

U.S. post office in 1964, and retired from service in 1976. However that did not slow her

down. In 1985 she received her salespersons

license in real estate and eventually her brokers license. She even added another feather

to her cap in 1994 when she received her associate of arts degree from South Suburban

College in Illinois.

Evelyn leaves to cherish her memory, a loving husband, Johnnie M. Hall, Sr.; 2 sons:

Rev. Gregory R. Hall and Johnnie M. Hall, Jr.;

3 daughters: Natalie D. Hall, Cora J. Layrock,

and Shiela A. Hall-Frazier; a stepdaughter,

Margaret A. Hall; 2 brothers: Eddie and Lloyd

Coward; 16 grandchildren; 2 great-grandchildren; 1 special aunt, Evelyn Bates; and a

host of cousins and friends. As you can well

see, she will be greatly missed by many.

I am honored to enter these words of tribute

to Ms. Evelyn Christine Hall into the R

f ECORD.

AMERICA’S CITIES

HON. BILL RICHARDSON OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise

today to call to the attention of my colleagues

a wonderful article written by the Honorable

Raymond L. Flynn, United States Ambassador

to the Vatican. Ambassador Flynn had a distinguished career as mayor of Boston before

his current service as Ambassador, and is

very well informed of the problems and crises

facing American cities. As an acknowledged

expert in Urban Affairs, Ambassador Flynn

has a keen interest and useful insight into

solving the pressing problems of our cities. I

would like to share a copy of Ambassador

Flynn’s article as published recently by Urban

Affairs Review and commend it to my colleagues.

AMERICA’S CITIES—CENTERS OF CULTURE,

COMMERCE, AND COMMUNITY—OR COLLAPSING HOPE?

(Raymond L. Flynn)

Perhaps the greatest obstacle facing cities

today is the changing nature of the definition of city. The term city formerly signified

a social center wherein large populations

gathered to live, to exchange goods and

ideas, and to develop and sustain a system

that provided for the needs of its inhabitants. The very word had connotations of

hopelessness, a place where ‘‘they’’ live. People demand greater measures against crime,

welfare fraud, and illegal immigration. Underlying these demands, however, is the sentiment held by many Washington officials

that few resources should be dedicated to

urban areas—and to those who dwell within

them.

In 1968, the Kerner Commission (U.S. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders) issued a warning that America was in

danger of being divided into two nations: one

white, one black. Presently, the United

States faces the prospect of becoming a

gated community—confining the poor within

the city limits, separating them from those

better off in the suburbs. Instead of seeking

solutions to the problems of the cities, the

cities themselves, along with the people living in them, have been incorrectly identified

as the problem. If this misperception continues, more will be at stake than our cities. Indeed, the very values on which our nation

was founded—equality, and life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness—will be placed in

jeopardy.

The question has been asked, Why should

we concern ourselves with cities? It has been

suggested by some high-ranking officials and

sociologists that cities have outlived their

usefulness. It is argued that new technology

and the world economy have made cities obsolete and that we should discard them like

unproductive units in a company that needs

downsizing.

This utilitarian approach to the modern

city ignores the reality that cities are made

up of much more than material and human

resources. The people are the heart of the

city and cannot be reduced to a pool of disposable ‘‘goods’’ in an economic system.

Cities are much more than economic entities; therefore, the human side of urban life

cannot be ignored.

There are many compelling motives for

turning our attention to the problems of the

modern city. Among them are the following:

1. Cities have always been, and will always

be, places of refuge, where those in need seek

the support and comfort of others. They are

centers for opportunities and hopes, where

ideas, talents, and native intelligence are

translated into a mutually energizing and

life-giving environment conducive to the development of both culture and commerce.

The historic roots of our nation remind us

that nearly all of our families entered the

American mainstream through cities. Most

of these families arrived by ship, crossing

one border or another, legally or illegally

(and, many times, in the ‘‘gray area’’ in between). Cities in the United States kept the

promise inscribed at the base of the Statue

of Liberty—to receive ‘‘Your tired, your

poor, your huddled masses yearning to

breathe free.’’ No matter how far we may

have come since then, we cannot forget the

values of the cities that were home to them.

To do so would be hypocritical, denying to

new immigrants the promise offered to our

ancestors by American cities.

2. From a purely economic perspective, it

would actually be less expensive to spend

more rather than less on cities and the people living within them. The cost of urban

misery is astronomic. From furnishing prison beds to caring for low-birth-weight babies, from providing for health care for AIDS

victims and the elderly to feeding the urban

poor, the cost of the barely living index is

exorbitant. This growing moral deficit pulls

not only on our consciences but also on our

economy. The expense of preventive programs can reduce the cost of urban neglect.

3. From a socioeconomic perspective, saving urban America might be in everyone’s

self-interest. It seems that the rumors of the

death—and decrease in importance—of cities

are greatly exaggerated. Cities are again

seen for what they have always been—economic engines that create and distribute

wealth. In an upcoming book, Neil Pierce argues that city-states are replacing nations as

the key units of production in the modern

global economy (Spence 1994, 11). Micheal

Porter, author of The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990), talks about the ‘‘untapped economic potential’’ of cities, especially as hosts for the ‘‘clusters’’ of industry

he sees as the driving force in the new economy (Porter 1994, 11). Yes, capital is mobile,

but is has to land somewhere. Invariably, it

is in cities. But which ones? A new school of

thought, with proponents such as Paul

Romer, an economist at the University of

California at Berkeley, Lester Thurow of

M.I.T., and Michael Porter of Harvard, holds

that cities attract investment to the degree

that they can bridge the income gap with

their surrounding suburbs. Romer states

that ‘‘maybe even the rich can be worse off

from inequality’’ (Bernstein 1994, 79).

These sentiments are being echoed on the

political front by Democrats and Republicans alike. Labor Secretary Robert B.

Reich recently warned that ‘‘A society divided between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’

or between the well educated and the poorly

educated . . . cannot be prosperous or stable’’ (Bernstein 1994, 79). Republican theorist

Kevin Phillips, who traces the growing inequality to a transfer of wealth from the

middle class not down to the poor but up to

the rich (Bernstein 1994, 79) agrees with this

assessment. He remarks that economic stratification is contrary to the American sense

of fairness and equality.

Where did we go wrong? How did we lose

the idea of equal opportunity that has been

part and parcel of city life? At the moment,

it is fashionable to ascribe the plight of our

cities to the failure of the urban policies of

the 1960s and 1970s. Fashionable, but false.

There are at least four factors that have contributed to the present situation.

1. Even as the urban policies of the 1960s

and 1970s were being initiated, the ‘‘suburbanization’’ policies that began in the

1950s were continuing. Superhighway subsidies and low-interest mortgages accelerated the process of urban disinvestment.

Cities began to spruce up their front yards

and put out the welcome mats while the

moving trucks were pulling up to the back

door, carrying away not only the furniture

but, more important, the families that form
E 1120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 25, 1995

the fabric of a strong and vibrant community.

2. Those who did stay to ‘‘fight the good

(urban) fight’’ found themselves embroiled in

an unproductive and unnecessary civil war

(well documented by urban expert Nicholas

Lemann, 1991) over whether these new policies should be administered from the bottom

up (by community-based organizations) or

from the top down (by local government). It

is not clear who won that war, but it is clear

who lost—the cities and the people in them.

It is also clear that with few exceptions,

mayors began to see themselves more as

CEOs than as community champions, while

people in the neighborhoods increasingly

found themselves having to fight City Hall.

3. The urban policies of the 1960s and 1970s

were preempted by the ‘‘What’s in it for

me?’’ policies of the 1980s. Tax and investment policies were enacted by an antiurban

administration in Washington that favored

the wealthy corporations at the expense of

the community. This political about-face

prevented any progress that had begun in

urban areas from taking root.

4. Finally, America still has not dealt with

the issue of race. Federal government mandates, quota systems, and reckless policies

have divided poor whites and blacks, pitting

one against the other. Until we deal with

this problem, our urban areas will remain

fragmented.

So what are we going to do about it? Ironically, the 1994 election gives us a new opportunity to finally ‘‘get it right.’’ Let’s begin

by not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Let’s recognize the importance of U.S. cities

and support them, just as we support any

valuable institution in American society,

such as home ownership and business investment. It is imperative to encourage ownership and investment in our cities—by individuals and corporations—at least as much

as we do in the suburbs. We need to promote

policies that will halt the flight of the working middle class, the backbone of our society, from our cities.

Too costly? Many say so. However, those

who call for cuts in support to the cities

might eventually have to consider equal cuts

in the suburbs. No enterprise zones downtown? Fine, but let’s stop building express

roads to the suburban shopping malls, roads

that carry away both shoppers and jobs.

Further, let’s not force a false choice between community and local government.

During my 10 years as mayor, the city of

Boston was able to enjoy unprecedented success in building affordable housing by collaborating with community development

corporations, in promoting jobs for Boston

residents by working together with employers and unions, in caring for the hungry and

the homeless by uniting our efforts with a

network of charitable organizations, in providing quality community health care by

working with neighborhood-based health

centers, and in fighting crime by facilitating

cooperation between police and residents to

form ‘‘crime-watch’’ groups. Citizens and

governments have enough to fight against

without fighting each other.

Moreover, mayors should be the leaders in

working for economic and social justice.

They should be out in the communities,

fighting for the rights of their people in the

neighborhoods and not just in boardrooms,

up at the state House (where much of the political power has shifted), and down in Washington. The present generation of ‘‘buttondown’’ mayors needs to return to a more

grassroots approach if they want their constituents to recognize that they are working

for their benefit and to avoid the divisiveness of a citizen-versus-City-Hall mentality.

Urban America needs players, not spectators; fighters, not promoters; activists not

actors.

I believe that city mayors have some powerful and active allies in their effort to serve

the well-being of their citizens. One such ally

is the religious community. I have some experience in this area and can personally testify that the Catholic Church, for example, is

not motivated by what is considered liberal

or conservative or by labels such as Democrat or Republican but, rather, by the quest

for Truth and Justice. The Catholic Church

may be perceived as conservative on moral

issues, but is liberal and progressive regarding economic and social issues such as strong

concern for working families and the needy

(once traditional Democratic voters). This,

of course, is true for other religious organization as well.

You have only to read the documents from

Annual U.S. Bishop’s Conference to be convinced that on many social and economic issues, the positions of the Catholic Church

are very much like those of the Clinton administration, whose agenda support working

families, the needy, and the American cities.

Furthermore, their stated positions are in

strict opposition to those set forth in the

‘‘Contract with America.’’ Although the

Catholic Church does not support the Democratic party platform on abortion, it is they

make this country work. We must bring

cities back if we’re going to remember who

we are, where we came from, and what we

hope to be. We must bring cities back if

we’re going to continue to care.

IN HONOR OF ‘‘UNCLE DAN’’

fBEARD

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today commemorate the life of a great American, Daniel

Carter Beard.

Daniel, or ‘‘Uncle Dan’’ as he was known to

the thousands of young men whose lives he

affected, was the cofounder of the Boy Scouts

of America. Born in 1850, Daniel Beard was

vigorous enough to be active in the Boy

Scouts until his passing in 1941, just months

shy of his 91st birthday. While his presence

lives on in the design of the original Scout uniform, far more important are the effects that

he had on the teaching, thoughts, and philosophies of the Boy Scout movement which is

with us to this day.

Daniel Beard cofounded the Boy Scouts in

1910 when he was 60 years young. At an age

when most people would think of slowing

down and retiring, Daniel Beard began to

speed up. By profession he was an illustrator,

editor and author of books for boys. His abilities complemented his love of nature, and so

he organized groups of young men and taught

them the skills of America’s pioneers. He

would later merge these groups into the Boy

Scouts. He became the first National Scout

Commissioner of the Boy Scouts and added

the title of Chairman of the National Court of

Honor in 1913. During this time he was editing

and writing articles for Boys’ Life magazine as

well as continuing his fight as an early proponent of conservation. He was thus one of

America’s first environmentalists. Daniel Beard

carried on his tradition of helping and teaching

the young men of this country until his death.

Daniel Beard spent the final years of his life

at his home, Brooklands, in Rockland County,

NY, in my 20th Congressional District of New

York State. One might think that he no longer

continued in his practice of working with young

men but this is not the case. On moving to

Brooklands in 1928, Dan Beard hosted a national Scout rally at his home. At the age of

78, he appeared in his famous buckskin outfit

and spoke at length to the boys in attendance.

Subsequently he joined an honor guard of

Rockland Eagle Scouts when they attended

the National Scout Jamboree in Washington,

DC, at which he was the guest of honor. He

attended all of the major Scout gatherings during those years and his popularity with the

young men involved was amply proved. At the

1939 World’s Fair, his introduction received

louder applause than most of the other guests

of honor, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In the last years of his life, Dan Beard continued to be active in the Scout community of

Rockland County. In 1940, at the age of 90,

he led 100 Scouts from the county in the dedication of a community site. In the same year

he presided over a meeting of the Campfire

Girls of Arden, NY, in Orange County, NY,

showing his support and love for all young

people. Thus, he was one of the first Americans to express support for gender equality in

our society.

Daniel Beard’s life of service cannot be

lauded enough. His effect upon so many of

the young men whose values were shaped by

their time in the Scouts is immeasurable. He

summed up the course of his life when he

said: ‘‘Once a Scout, always a Scout.’’ He

proved this sentiment with his unending dedication to the organization that he cofounded.

Many of the young men and women of this

Nation, and of Rockland and Orange Counties

in particular, owe this man a debt of gratitude

for his influence and service.

On June 3, 1995, Daniel Beard will be honored in Rockland County by the Dan Beard

Committee and the Rockland County Council

of the Boy Scouts of America. The council and

the committee will host a day of dedication for

Daniel Beard in the Village of Suffern, Rockland County, NY.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite our colleagues to join us in honoring Daniel Beard.

Fifty years after his death Daniel Beard is still

considered a great American and an outstanding example of how many lives one dedicated

person can affect.

IN OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL

fDAY

HON. STENY H. HOYER OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in advance of Memorial Day, to remember the men

and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in

defense of this great Nation and the ideals for

which it stands. It is fitting that before we

Americans celebrate the arrival of summer, we

set aside a special day in honor of all those

brave and selfless individuals who have died

to defend our freedom and security. Each of

the patriots whom we remember on Memorial

Day was first a beloved son or daughter, sibling, spouse and friend. Each had hopes and

dreams not unlike our own.