Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a very special lady celebrated a very special birthday on September 3. She is Ninel Segal, an unpaid volunteer in the office of my friend and colleague, Congressman Michael R. McNulty. In the true American tradition, Ninel has devoted her life to helping people--as an educator and an administrator dedicated to securing employment for economically disadvantaged individuals in New York State's capital region. Ninel has selflessly given her time and service to numerous organizations. She never fails to lend a helping hand when needed. A most charming person with a sharp intellect and a compassionate heart, she has an unusual capacity for bringing people together. Mr. Speaker, on this happy occasion, it is my pleasure to ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in wishing Ninel Segal the happiest of birthdays--and many, many more to come.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a story for any of my esteemed colleagues who think that the press in Russia is truly free. Early this month NTV, the largest privately owned TV network in Russia aired a puppet show that took a few satirical swipes at the Russian government. Very light stuff compared to what you might see on Saturday Night Live. The prosecutor-general's office, upon learning that the honor and dignity of the Russian leadership had been made light of, swung into action, filing suit against the producers of the show and launching a full-blown criminal investigation. Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite ironic that the Russian government, which has thus far proven incapable of catching the killers of two leading journalists, is turning its massive resources to bear on a bunch of rubber puppets. Public figures have to face up to a certain amount of lampooning, and a little political humor is no excuse for this kind of bullying by the Russian government.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the constituents of my district in honoring Mr. Harry Paster. Next month, one of the guiding lights of American advertising will retire after a most distinguished 47-year career. Harry Paster, a legend in the advertising world, will be retiring from his position as executive vice president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies [AAAA] on September 30, 1995. American advertising is one of the Nation's most vibrant and important industries, and for over 77 years, the leadership of the AAAA has advanced and strengthened the advertising agency business throughout the U.S. One of the most respected and dedicated members of that leadership team has been the AAAA's executive vice president, Harry Paster. Mr. Paster, who earned his bachelor's degree at City College of New York and his master's degree from New York University, started with AAAA as a statistician in 1948. Subsequently, he was promoted to vice president, to senior vice president, and in 1980, to executive vice president of the association. In each of these positions, Mr. Paster demanded the highest standards from his industry and from himself. In 1992 Mr. Paster's dynamic career and extraordinary contributions to the advertising agency business were aptly recognized when he was named Man of the Year by the Advertising Club of New York and awarded the prestigious Silver Medal by the American Advertising Federation. When Harry Paster retires next month from the industry that he has nurtured and led for almost five decades, his humor, his counsel and his unparalleled insight into the people and the workings of the advertising business will be sorely missed. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me, and Harry's countless friends in commending Harry Paster for his dedicated service and in wishing him the very best for a most rewarding and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are once again discussing the pros and cons of unilaterally lifting the U.N. arms embargo on Bosnia, and I rise in strong support of this measure, S. 21, that would lift the embargo. Although the arms embargo was deemed a viable stopgap to the conflict when it was first instituted almost 3 years ago, it has clearly failed to inject any amount of fairness into this tragic war. The Bosnian Serb army, under the tutelage of Milosevic, and armed with the weaponry and training of the former Federal Yugoslav Army, is a towering Goliath to the Bosnian Government's brave David. For 3 years now every American has watched with horror as the tragedies in the Balkans continued unabated. In those 3 years there has been much talk, and even several threats, about doing something that could effectively stop the advance of the Bosnian Serbs in their quest to ethnically cleanse Bosnia. And yet the United States and Europe are still stuck in the same place we were in when the conflict began. What is the secret solution to ending the bloodshed? What is the correct combination of action and diplomacy that will send the strongest possible message to the Serbs that the international community does not tolerate this slaughter? I don't know. And I can't say if anyone knows. But I do know, as do most of my colleagues, what is the right thing to do. We must lift the embargo. In my mind, it is the only conscionable thing to do. The Bosnian Government and people have called for it, and the American people support it, as does this Congress. There is no doubt that the embargo was well-intentioned, but in practice it has no validity. We must give the Bosnians a chance to defend themselves under equal terms. Without this measure, we leave them without a fighting chance. Recently Srebrenica and Zepa were overrun, tomorrow it could be Sarajevo and Bihac. And it is common knowledge that the Bosnian Serbs won't stop until they get exactly what they want--a land free of everybody else except for them. This message sounds eerily familiar, particularly in light of the Nazi Holocaust, and especially this summer, as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII. The United States has always been known as the true defender of democracy and basic freedoms. I say then, let us take the lead in promoting that legacy. We are not opening the door for another Vietnam. The Bosnians don't want us to train and advise them. They don't want us to plan their military operations and send in American ground troops to defend Sarajevo. What they want is a fighting chance. And with this vote, we can give that to them.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it was a terrible joke to begin with. Izzi and Abie were rounded up and captured by the Nazi troops. They were marched to the end of the town and told to dig their own grave, which they did. And the Nazi storm trooper stood in front of them with his machinegun and he said, ``Do you have any last wish?'' And Izzi looks at Abie and he says, ``Abie, I think I will ask for a blindfold.'' And Abie looks quietly back at Izzi and he says, ``Izzi, don't make waves.'' From that terrible story, Mr. Chairman, came the expression ``Never again.'' Never again would a people allow themselves to be placed at the edge of annihilation, without fighting back, without defending themselves. Never again said the almost wiped out people. Never again said their neighbors. Never again said the rest of the world. Never again will we sit idly by and allow a whole race to face extinction. Never, said a regretful world. We did not know, said their neighbors. We did not know it was happening, said everybody. They must have taken them away in the middle of the night. How did we know? Never again. Well, Mr. Chairman, never again is happening yet again. Does it make it any better if you substitute Ahmed and Mohammed for Izzi and Abie? I think not. Does it make it better if you substitute someone else's people for my people? I think not. Does it make it better if you talk about the numbers being only hundreds of thousands instead of millions? It certainly does not. How do we sit idly by? How do we allow this to happen? How do we institutionalize inaction? How do we prevent the people from fighting back and defending themselves, tying their hands behind their backs. That is worse. That is being complicitous. That is being enablers. That is being permitters. It is almost like being accomplices to those who are committing genocide on this planet today. We sit here and fritter about terrible choices that we have. There were terrible choices then as well. We talk about glimmers of hope. Glimmers of hope for whom? If that were your people, if that were my people, you would not be so hopeful, waiting for the world to intervene. Mr. Chairman, we must act or we will be guilty of recommitting the sins of the past that we have condemned on this floor over and over and over again. This is racial ethnic genocide, make no bones about it, and those who sit and only watch are guilty of participating, are guilty in sins of omission, if not sins of commission. Mr. Chairman, once again evil stalks the world, and we are sitting around passing the blindfolds. Do not let this happen. We would not want this to happen to our people. This should not happen to anybody's race. This is our race. It is the human race.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome a very distinguished statesman and friend of the United States, President Kim Yong-sam of the Republic of Korea. Since his ascension to the presidency in 1993, President Kim has worked tirelessly to promote democracy and economic liberalization in Korea. His efforts to further the advancement of ties between his country and the United States have been warmly received by the administration and those of us in Congress. There is no doubt that Korea is well served by President Kim. His service to the country is practically unmatched, having been elected to the National Assembly at the young age of 25, and serving there for nearly 40 years. He is a man with a clear vision and intends to boldly lead his country into the 21st century. It is precisely this kind of leadership that is needed in the new era dawning over Asia. In the last decade, Asian nations have become a force to reckon with in economic terms, and Korea is at the forefront of this revolution. They have become a marvelous model of success for developing countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. In no small term, the success visited upon Korea is a testament to the will and determination of the Korean people. The United States has only to gain by continuing to support Korea and her people. Our relationship is truly limitless in its possibilities, and together we can certainly overcome any adversities. I welcome President Kim to the United States, and applaud his leadership. This is a friendship of which the United States can truly be proud.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Bereuter's resolution. It is fully within our rights to criticize the Chinese Government's highly inappropriate behavior, underscored recently by the case of Harry Wu. There is no doubt in my mind that we cannot stand idly by while an American citizen is treated with such disregard. The imprisonment of Mr. Wu is an insult to every American. I also applaud Mr. Wolf's and Ms. Pelosi's support for the China Policy Act. Their efforts were instrumental in forming the final language of this bill. With that said, I must add that House Joint Resolution 96, revoking MFN for China, must be rejected. It is the wrong message to send, and if we insist on sending it, it will hurt us. It is legislation that will accomplish nothing politically. In that respect, what we are doing here is not symbolic. It is not kowtowing to China. It is not standing on the sidelines of the issue. In fact, we are sending a very strongly worded message to China's leaders that we are very unhappy with their conduct. In answer to those who question a lack of action, this bill would require regular reports from the administration to Congress detailing China's progress in those areas of concern to us--particularly human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, and unfair trade practices. We are not simply sending them a hint of our displeasure. We are actively pursuing a change in their policy. And we will be doing so without harming our own interests. Critics of extending MFN to China counter that revocation of this status is the only way that we can affect change in China. They claim that we can only make ourselves heard, and persuade the Chinese to adhere to international norms, by disengaging ourselves economically-- even at the expense of American industry. That is totally incorrect. It has been said before, and I will reiterate it. We do need to express our displeasure with the Government and ensure that our concerns are heard and understood. For that reason, we need to remain engaged in China--economically and politically. Without those avenues, we will not have the leverage to accomplish what all of us in Congress, and in the United States, deem to be of the utmost importance--securing the full observance of human rights, democratic reforms, economic liberalization, and preventing the proliferation of China's weapons of mass destruction. There is no argument here that we have many problems and concerns with China's internal policies and trade practices. We need to make it clear to the Chinese Government that their intolerable policies will not go unanswered. And in answering we will use all of the means necessary within our relationship to convey our views to them. However, we need to act within the construct of our established relationship, thereby working toward our goal of a free and democratic China. I commend Mr. Bereuter on his well-written and well-directed bill, and I urge its swift passage.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the committee in a brief colloquy, if I might. Mr. Chairman, the committee has included money in H.R. 1905 to complete the reconnaissance portion of the coastal erosion study on the north shore of Long Island, but it does not contain money to begin the feasibility portion of that study. As the chairman knows, the north shore has had an extensive history of tidal flooding and shore erosion and damage to shore-front development, most recently in 1992. Since the committee has rejected the President's proposal with regard to shore protection studies and since New York State has already provided money for its share of the project, would the chairman be willing to work with me as the bill moves through the process to see that the Federal Government provides its share of the cost?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank both distinguished gentlemen.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support in the past and for his pledge of support as this process moves forward. I am deeply appreciative. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alabama as well as for his support in the past on this project and ask the distinguished ranking member for his continued assistance in the future as this bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I regrettably rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. Simply put, this is an unhelpful amendment proffered at the wrong time. While I can understand the gentleman's motivations, I certainly cannot agree with the approach. Yes, Kenya's human rights record is blemished. Yes, democratic principles have not completely taken root there. And, yes, they have a long way to go before they achieve a full-fledged free market economy. Yes, we must continue to work to improve the situation there. However, by adopting this amendment, we will do serious damage to the important relationship between the United States and Kenya. In the past few years we have seen unsteady progress in human rights, but in a telling sign, the press has remained sufficiently free, and that has been a consistently critical voice of dissent against the government. Whereas in years past we have overlooked Kenya's human rights violations, as we did similarly with other countries in order to keep their support during the cold war, we no longer tolerate these violations. In fact, our assistance program has built in performance-based budgeting systems, and aid to Kenya has actually decreased over the past several years. Not only has development aid to Kenya dropped from $34 million in 1990 to $18 million today, but only 6 percent of this aid now goes through government channels. There is no doubt that Kenya still has a long journey toward fulfilling democratic principles and we should continue to press for improvements in individual freedoms and human rights, but we must also keep in mind our overall relationship and Kenya's key role in the region as well as the loss of influence which will occur if we eliminate all government-to-government aid. I stand prepared to work with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] in pressing for future and further reforms, but cutting off all aid to this government would eradicate the remaining lever we have preserved through a very small amount of aid, 6 percent of our DFA funding which is funneled through the government. I urge our colleague to consider withdrawing this amendment. And in the absence of that, I urge its defeat.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a bit old-fashioned. I love our country. I love our Constitution. I even love a parade. I love our flag. I am an Eagle Scout who still gets a tingle down my spine when Old Glory goes by. I do not understand and I disapprove of those misguided people who would desecrate that in which we all believe. The question is, how should we as American patriots respond? Do we, like Voltaire, disagree with what they say, but loving freedom so much defend their right to do so? Or do we do like a despot, who, when offended, seeks to put an end to the activities of those who offend them? Why should we as Americans act? Is the threat so great? Is our society grinding to a halt? Are our constituents jumping out from behind parked cars, waiving flags, and burning them at us so we cannot get to work? Is there a left-leaning radical court giving solace to our enemies? Or is it a blue, white, and red herring to use our beloved national symbol as a partisan pawn by petty politicians for their personal partisan purposes? And what is the flag, and why do I love it? The flag is not our way of life. The flag is a symbol. It is a symbol of our country, of our value system, a symbol of the things in which we believe. And high among those beliefs is the right to disagree and the right to protest, the same right currently in each and every one of our 50 States. Let me correct a misconception. Nobody died for the flag. They died for what it stands for. No American mother gave up her son for a piece of cloth. The sacrifice was made for our way of life. It did not cost us a sea of blood and thousands of lives for a flag that costs each of us $7.97 a copy in the office supply store downstairs. Americans did not sacrifice and bleed and die for a piece of cloth, but rather for what it symbolizes. And what does it symbolize? It symbolizes the greatest experiment in democracy and individual rights in the history of this planet. It symbolizes a country that is different, because people, indispensable and disagreeable people, have a right to protest, to protest to Congress, to protest against Congress, to protest against you and me, to protest against their Government, their President, their Constitution, and, yes, even against their flag. This proposed amendment says that 50 States can pass 50 different flag desecration amendments. The motion to recommit corrects that. Imagine 50 different definitions of desecration. Is it a tearing in Montana? It will be. Will it be burning in Mississippi? How about soiling in New Jersey, or cursing at the flag in Utah? Imagine 50 different State definitions of the flag itself. Is it cloth? How about a paper flag? Could it be unconstitutional to burn a tablecloth that looks like a flag? How about ripping up a photograph of a flag, destroying a symbol of a symbol? Take away that right, and you have diminished us all. Is a flag anything with stars and stripes? If it has 70 stars and 12 stripes, have you burned a U.S. flag, or can you get off the hook? It will be different in each of 50 States. How about if it is orange, white, and blue? We can have people making them for the purpose of burning. If that is the case, do you beat the rap? The Constitution is supposed to protect your rights, not your sensitivities. Take away that right, and you are changing what the flag symbolizes, for the first time in American history, reducing constitutional rights. Pass the amendment as it is without the motion to recommit, and what will it mean? The answer will be different in 50 different States. Let us take a look at what it might mean. America's First Ladies, most of them, all truly patriots, have worn American flag kerchiefs. Are they desecrators? A patriotic gesture, you say? How about an ugly Democrat wearing a flag hat in some State that does not like the idea? Or an uglier flag hat, or an uglier flag hat? How about a bathing suit made out of the Stars and Stripes, is that desecration? Maybe in one State it is, and another State it will not be. It goes further. Where does it offend you? How about pantyhose made out of the flag? Stars down one side, stripes down the other leg. I will spare you the things that personally offend me. How about children who desecrate? Wearing silly flag ears? Or flag pinwheels? Or filling the flag up with hot air? Can you try these children as if they were adult desecrators? How about American flag napkins? If you blow your nose in one, have you broken the law? Violating the Constitution is nothing to sneeze at. And how about American flag plates? If you put your spaghetti in it, do you go to the can? How about a flag bag? Have you violated the Constitution if you fill it with garbage and then throw it out? Each State could have a different answer. Do we raid factories that make things such as George and Barbara slippers out of flags? Do we just arrest the people who make them or the people who put their feet in them? Do you throw them all in jail? How about flag socks? There are ugly ones, and there are cute ones. Do you violate the flag when you make them, when you buy them, when you wear them? Does it matter if your feet are clean or dirty? And what happens if different States make different statutes? Do you have to check your socks at the border? And what happens to you if you burn your socks? Disposable flashlights. Can you dispose of them or do you have to give them a decent burial when the battery dies? Suspenders. Does that get you a suspended sentence in one State and live sentence in another? And your mother's admonition to wear clean underwear will have new meaning when it comes from your lawyer. I do not mean to trivialize the flag, Mr. Speaker. Americans love and respect our flag. But we do not want to worship it. It is not a religious relic that once destroyed exists no more. It is not the physical embodiment of our value system that once gone can no longer be. It is only a copy. The fabric of our beliefs are woven into our society and guaranteed by our Constitution, and that which is a symbol of our beliefs is not so fragile as to be endangered by matches or desecrators or even trivializers. Desecrators cannot destroy the flag, Mr. Speaker. They have tried. They have burnt it, they have soiled it, they have torn it, but they have not destroyed it. Turn around, Mr. Speaker. There it is, right in back of you. You cannot destroy a symbol, unless you destroy that which it represents. I urge our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, do not destroy what our flag represents. Do not destroy what our flag represents. Please, do not destroy that which our flag represents.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District and the residents of the Flushing, Queens, community in mourning the loss of one of New York's most distinguished citizens, Jack Farber. A graduate of Lafayette College and Brooklyn Law School, Mr. Farber established a reputation as a builder and developer of real estate on Long Island. Yet it was as chairman of the National Bank of New York City that he made his greatest contribution and is best remembered. In 1963, Jack Farber founded the Flushing National Bank, later renamed the National Bank of New York City, and turned it into a neighborhood institution. From its outset, the bank, under Jack's astute leadership, assumed a unique role of exceptional service to the community. It was the first commercial bank to have its main branch and headquarters in the Flushing area. It also become known as a pioneer in banking operations by being the first bank in New York City to be open for business on Saturdays, as a convenience to its depositors. In addition, it was the first bank in New York State to pay interest on Christmas and Chanukah savings accounts. As the Flushing community grew, so did Jack Farber's bank. In fact, Jack looked upon the bank as one of his greatest achievements, but, even more, he viewed the bank as part of the community. In doing so, he accepted the responsibility of supporting the community. He [[Page E 1288]] was an active benefactor of the Anti-Defamation League, the United Jewish Appeal, Lafayette College, and a multitude of other charitable organizations that fulfilled Jack's mission to promote civil and human rights, expand health care, and to improve humanity. It is to the great benefit of the Flushing neighborhood that citizens such as Jack Farber have so willingly shared their skill, compassion, and goodwill in giving of themselves to enhance our neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in extending our condolences to the Farber family, and in paying tribute to the late Jack Farber, a skillful businessman and a warm and generous humanitarian.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Fifth Annual Day of the African Child. Nineteen years ago today, a terrible tragedy ensued in Soweto, South Africa. June 16, 1976 marks the beginning of a 5 day riot during which South African police massacred almost 200 protestors, many of them children. The Day of the African Child is dedicated to their memory. By commemorating this day, we are also promoting cross-cultural awareness and celebrating Africa's progress in meeting the needs of its children. Unfortunatley, there are still many impediments to further progress. Violence still ravages the lives of many African children. In the past decade, 2 million African children died as a result of armed conflict, 4 to 5 million were rendered physically disabled, and over 17 million were driven out of their homes. In addition, some 200,000 children under the age of 15 were forced into service in various African armies. Let us use this day, and all those after, to focus on the desperate situation of children in Africa. Let us all contribute to a better world for our children, where they can expect to live a life free of violence, and receive the benefits of education, good health care, and safe shelter. Although there is quite a distance to go, there have been some remarkable achievements in the last 35 years. In fact, U.S. development aid to Africa has been instrumental in helping millions of children live healthier and safer lives. For example, the death rate of children under 5 has been cut in half since 1960. The average life expectancy in Africa has risen to 54 years, an increase of 13 years since 1960. African governments provided safe water and adequate sanitation to an additional 120 million people during the 1980's, and now over 80 percent of the children living in urban areas have access to safe water. In addition, about 69 percent of African girls are now enrolled in primary school, up from 44 percent in the 1970's. But this is still not enough. We must get behind this momentum of change we helped create and not stop until we have accomplished what we originally set out to do: to make this a safer world for our children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in commemorating today as the Day of the African Child. But, I also urge them to take one step further. Children are the world's most priceless resources, and we should honor them every day of the year.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of New York and the citizens of Eastern Long Island in recognizing Dan Rattiner. For 35 years, Dan Rattiner has distinguished himself as a leading force in the Long Island newspaper industry as publisher and editor of Dan's Papers on the East End of Long Island. When Dan Rattiner founded Dan's Papers in 1960, he boldly accepted his own challenge to inform and educate Eastern Long Island residents of the important issues affecting their community. Throughout the years, Dan Rattiner has also served the East End with exceptional public service. Every year since 1979, Dan Rattiner has raised tens of thousands of dollars for charity through the annual Dan's Papers Potatohampton Minithon, a 10K race that occurs in Bridgehampton every Memorial Day weekend. From 1985 to 1993. Dan sponsored a summertime radio show in Manhattan entitled ``The Hampton Report,'' informing citizens throughout the New York Metropolitan area about the unique attributes and attractions of the East End. Presently, Dan hosts a New York City radio program, ``The Weekend Report,'' which also enlightens New Yorkers about the East End. In addition, Dan Rattiner has authored numerous books on the East End, including ``Dan's Book,'' ``Albert Einstein's Summer Vacation,'' and ``Who's Here: The Heart of the Hamptons.'' Mr. Speaker, Dan Rattiner's achievements and contributions to the East End merit the special appreciation of the community, his friends, and his family. I ask all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me this day in recognizing Dan Rattiner for his generous contributions and dedicated service to the Long Island community.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my constituents in the 5th Congressional District of New York, and the citizens of the Village of Port Washington, in Nassau County, in recognizing the Port Washington Youth Activities [PYA] as it celebrates its Fifth Hall of Fame Dinner Dance. This year, the PYA will honor three individuals, Rudy Hotarek, Tom Robertson, and Tom Brown, for their dedication and support of youth activities in the community. These individuals will be inducted into the Port Washington Youth Activities Hall of Fame. Rudy Hotarek was a significant force in the developmental days of PYA; he served as coach, officer and member of the board for more than 10 years. Tom Robertson was a distinguished and involved coach of young people for more than 12 years. He lent his exceptional efforts to PYA's football, basketball, and lacrosse programs. Finally, Tom Brown is being honored for athletic achievements in basketball and football at the collegiate level in the 1970's. Much of the PYA's reputation for skillful competition and dedication to excellence was developed during Tom Brown's participation as a young man in PYA football, basketball and baseball programs. All three of these gentlemen are being recognized for their individual and collective contributions to youth sports. Their achievements are an excellent reflection upon themselves, their families, and their community, and represent the true American spirit of dedication and volunteerism embodied by the PYA. These three men are most deserving of this honor, and merit the special appreciation of their neighbors and friends. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me now in honoring Rudy Hotarek, Tom Robertson, and Tom Brown, and in congratulating the Port Washington Youth Activities for its generous contributions and dedicated service to the community.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. That is correct.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the gentleman's question, we have five additional speakers who are present in the room right now.

Mr. ACKERMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, as the gentleman knows, within the bill presently there is no plan for restructuring. The bill calls for a plan to be put forth by March of 1996. So there is no plan on which to base any costs. Why is there opposition to having somebody do an analysis of whether this will cost or save money?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. First, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman misinterprets my intent. I am not intending for anything to be studied to death. I do not want it to be studied any more than the time necessary to make the appropriate decision, but the gentleman refers, as previous speakers have referred, to the supposed fact, and it may or may not be true, that this bill as constructed is going to save money. And the only thing that I am asking and those who support this bill are asking is, where is the savings? Has there been, as you have called for time and time again, a cost- benefit analysis of any major change? Perhaps it is going to cost less, perhaps it is going to cost more. Without any delay, why can we not have somebody tell us where the savings are, where is it going to be more efficient, how many dollars. Could the gentleman tell me within $100 million how much we might save? There is not penny of savings in the bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is modeled on principles that the majority has articulated in this chamber since January, and it is my hope that we will have strong bipartisan support for its adoption. Members on both sides of the aisle--whether they support consolidation within the State Department or not--should find this amendment very attractive. We should know what our actions will cost or save before we engage in a massive reorganization. The amendment is designed to ensure that this body does not unknowingly write a blank check in the course of passing this bill, something that concerns all of us who are trying to save taxpayer dollars from frivolous Government spending. For those who are not on the International Relations Committee, let it be known that there is presently no way of knowing if the bill, as reported, will save one penny as a result of reorganization. Under this bill, we abolish three agencies and direct the former heads to report to work and assume new roles within the State Department. Yet there is no specific plan on how this will be accomplished. There is no plan in place to reduce any staff. There is no plan in place to eliminate the cost of maintaining buildings, if indeed any are found not to be needed, and there is no plan in place to determine the costs and savings in buying out leases and service contracts. In fact, as the legislation is written, a consolidation plan is not required until March 1996. How do we do this in the blind? Without this amendment we will be passing a blank check bill. At this point, there is simply no way to conduct a cost-benefit analysis because under the bill we won't even see a plan until March 1996. To rectify this problem my amendment does the following: First, it requires a joint report from the Director of OMB and the Director of the CBO, who is a Republican, requiring an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed plan for the first 5 years it is in effect. The report will cover effects of consolidation on personnel, management systems, real property, decision making processes, administrative costs and costs associated with terminating, amending or negotiating existing and new contracts. What if the proposed consolidation doesn't save money, but actually costs more money? That might come as a surprise to some. But you may want to go forward anyway--and you can. Second, if the report indicates that the costs of the reorganization exceed the fiscal year 1995 operating costs of the agencies, the President may determine it is in the national interest and proceed--and don't forget, this bill applies to the next president. If the President does not make that determination, the Congress must enact a joint resolution specifying that the consolidation, if more costly, may proceed. My goal here is simple: It is to guarantee that the Congress know and understand the costs of its action, and then proceeds to act with that knowledge. This provision is consistent with the vision of the Republican majority who have shown a consistent dedication to rigorous application of cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to strong bipartisan support in adoption of this amendment.