Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, it puzzles me why the Republicans are determined to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. After all, this law has its origins in State initiatives, was written by two Republicans, and has been declared successful by a leading Republican economist. If this isn't a winning combination as the majority defines it, then what is? Despite current GOP claims to the contrary, the Davis-Bacon Act is based on years of State experience with prevailing-wage standards prior to its passage by Congress. Back in 1891, Kansas adopted the country's first prevailing-wage statute, and at least six other States had passed similar legislation before the first prevailing-wage law was introduced in Washington. By the late 1920's, Republicans in Congress were extremely concerned about increasing incidents of cutthroat Federal bidding by fly-by-night contractors using low-wage labor. With shoddy construction threatening massive Federal building programs, Representative Robert Bacon--a New York Republican--introduced the forerunner of the Davis-Bacon law. With the help of Senator James Davis--a Republican from Pennsylvania and former Labor Secretary under three Republican Presidents--the Davis-Bacon Act was eventually passed and signed into law by President Hoover in 1931. Since that time, the Davis-Bacon Act has proven to be a remarkable success for local communities, minorities, and American taxpayers. Local communities have benefited because their wages have been protected against low-balling, out-of-State contractors, while their economies have been enriched by residents maintaining enough purchasing power to keep locally owned businesses thriving. Minorities have benefited from the Davis-Bacon Act's protection of wage gains made over the years, and become heavily employed in the construction industry because of the decent wages it pays. In addition, the percentage of minorities employed by Federal contractors is higher than the percentage of minorities employed by non-Federal contractors, which reflects the positive impact Davis-Bacon has had for minority workers. Finally, Davis-Bacon has benefited American taxpayers. Dr. John Dunlop--Secretary of Labor under President Ford--has concluded that any additional costs incurred by paying prevailing wages have been offset by better quality, productivity, timeliness, and reliability on Federal projects. It's vital for our bridges, schools, dams, nuclear waste removal projects, military installations, and superhighways to continue to be built to the highest specifications by the most qualified, well- trained workers available--and the Davis-Bacon Act ensures that will happen. Mr. Speaker, for over 60 years, Davis-Bacon has been an unqualified success. It must be preserved.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Helen M. Hausman and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. Helen M. Hausman is an exceptional public servant with a remarkable history of leadership in our community. She has served on the PTA for 25 years, been elected to the Sequoia Union High School District Board four times, and chaired a bay area symposium on the Geneva Conventions and Humanitarian Law. In addition, she is currently serving her second term on the San Mateo County Community College District Board and chairing the San Mateo County American Red Cross board of directors. As an advocate for youth and women, Ms. Hausman has volunteered for a number of youth organizations, and the Junior League has appointed her as community advisor to serve as a role model for young women volunteers Ms. Hausman has also spoken on gender equity issues for the American Association of University Women. Mr. Speaker, Helen M. Hausman is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Priya Karim Haji and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. Priya Karim Haji is only 24 years old and has already made remarkable contributions to our community. Currently she is the executive director and cofounder of Free at Last Community and Rehabilitation Services, which is an organization providing drug and alcohol recovery programs. While in college, Ms. Haji developed a comprehensive after-school activities program for high school youth, helped to found a free medical clinic, and organized a Midnight Basketball League. In addition, she served as a facilitator for a weekly substance abuse group at San Quentin Prison, volunteered with the County AIDS Program, and worked as a substance abuse counselor for Links to Positive People. Mr. Speaker, Priya Karim Haji is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lisa Marjorie Coar and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame as a Young Woman of Excellence. Lisa Marjorie Coar is a remarkable person who serves as a role model for everyone in our community. She is a 4.0 student at Burlingame High School, a member of its tennis team, the student body liaison to the Burlingame Human Relations Commission, and the student representative to the San Mateo Union High School Board of Trustees. Ms. Coar also plays an active role in the Black Student Union, volunteers with an afterschool day-care program, and serves food to the homeless. In addition, her achievements include being selected as a Girl's State Delegate, a National Achievement semifinalist, and the recipient of both the Edward Teller Award for Academic Excellence and the Xerox Humanities and Social Science Award. Mr. Speaker, Lisa Marjorie Coar is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame as a Young Woman of Excellence.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ortensia Lopez and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. Ortensia Lopez is an exceptional public servant who has demonstrated remarkable leadership in our community. She is the second of 11 children born to parents from Mexico and the first in her family to graduate from college. Since 1977, she has worked as the executive officer of the North Peninsula Neighborhood Services Center, and she is currently serving as executive director of the Bay Area Latino Non- Profit Association. In addition, Ms. Lopez is the cofounder of the Hispanic Concilio of San Mateo County, the Latino Issues Forum, and Sur San Francisco. She has also served on countless boards and commissions such as the State and local Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Chicana/ Latina Foundation, the AIDS Advisory Task Force, and Seton Hospital. Her dedicated service has been recognized with the Bank of America Hispanic Heroes and Heroines Award, the United Way of the Bay Area Volunteer of the Year Award, and the Hispanic Yellow Pages Community Recognition Award, among many others. Mr. Speaker, Ortensia Lopez is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Nan Hawkins Bostick and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. Nan Hawkins Bostick is a leading advocate for women and children in our community, as well as a prominent member of California's pro-choice movement. She has chaired Children by Choice, the Bay Area Pro-Choice Coalition, and the San Mateo County National Women's Political Caucus. In addition, she has served as public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of San Mateo and State coordinator of California Republicans for Choice. During the 1970's, Ms. Bostick was a member of a rock-and- roll band which performed at feminist rallies and children's programs. Her interest in education has extended to her own business, NGB & Associates, through which she has created instructive materials in various media for special education and inner-city students. Mr. Speaker, Nan Hawkins Bostick is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Celeste Maia Cron and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. After 25 years as the head of local printing and graphics firm, Celeste Maia Cron became the first woman to head the printing office for the State of California. At the printing office, Ms. Cron has started an in-house women's support group to deal with job discrimination, spousal and partner abuse, and other family related problems. Previously, she founded the Friends of the Advisory Council on Women and served as the president of the Private Industry Council and Soroptomists International of Burlingame/San Mateo. Ms. Cron is a prominent leader in our community and has been honored with a number of awards including the 1991 Volunteer Recognition Award by the Volunteer Center, a Palo Alto Junior League award for her work in education, the Key Award from the March of Dimes, and the National Association of Printers and Lithographers Award for Exceptional Employee Relationships. Mr. Speaker, Celeste Maia Cron is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for remarkable commitment and contributions to our as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carol Stroy Boes and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. Carol Stroy Boes is an exceptional public servant who has been an active member of her local community. While working as a flight attendant and mother, she pursued her higher education and obtained an advanced degree in law. In addition to running her own law practice, Ms. Boes has volunteered with a variety of local organizations, including those involved with city and county government, business, women's health, and community service. Her many leadership activities include: chairing of the San Mateo County Bar Association Real Estate Section; serving as a board member of the Human Investment Project, Leadership San Mateo, the San Mateo Rotary Club, the San Mateo Chamber of Commerce, and the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board; and working as a member of the Community Advisory Committee for Breast Cancer, and the County Charter Review Committee. In 1985, Ms. Boes received the Golden Gears Award from the Peninsula Industrial and Business Association. Mr. Speaker, Carol Stroy Boes is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Joseph E. Bergeron, an outstanding citizen and devoted public servant, on the occasion of his retirement from the San Mateo County Planning Commission. Mr. Bergeron has given invaluable service to the people of San Mateo County for 13 years as a planning commissioner, including three terms as commission chair. His unparalleled leadership and consensus-building skills were critical to seeing the county through some of its most difficult land use decisions. While Mr. Bergeron has devoted untold hours to the work of the commission, he has also made time to serve our community as a member of the board of directors of the Center for Civic Education, the San Mateo County Suicide Prevention Association, and the San Mateo County Heart Association. He has actively participated in the Italian American Federation, serving as its President from 1980-1982 and being named its 1992 Man of the Year, the PTA, and the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, where he was a counselor and merit badge advisor. Mr. Bergeron is also recognized throughout the State of California for his outstanding service to the State bar. He has been a champion of the legal profession since his graduation from the prestigious Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley in 1968. He was a member of the California State Bar board of governors from 1991-1994, serving as its vice president in 1994 and working to strengthen the legal profession as a member of the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, as well as the Committees on the Environment and Administration of Justice. He has given exemplary service to the legal community as a judge pro-tem and arbitrator for the Superior and Municipal Courts of San Mateo County, as an instructor of business law at San Mateo County Community College, and as a lecturer for the Continuing Education of the Bar and at numerous trial lawyer seminars. Mr. Bergeron has used his tireless energy to make great contributions to local legal organizations, including the Legal Aid Society, the County Bar Association, the Barristers Club, and the Trial Lawyers Association. In 1982, the California Trial Lawyers Association, on whose board he also served, recognized Joe Bergeron as its Outstanding Trial Lawyer Chapter President. Mr. Speaker, Joe Bergeron has been a shining light in San Mateo County throughout his long history of service to the public and the legal community. I've been privileged to work closely with him and I'm proud to call him my friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Joe Bergeron as he retires from the San Mateo County Planning Commission.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carolyn Noor and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame as a Young Woman of Excellence. As a senior at Aragon High School in San Mateo, CA, Carolyn Noor serves as a role model not only for her peers but also for our entire community. She tutors grade school students, volunteers as a counselor for an outdoor education program, coordinates the creation of a multicultural mural at her school, and works for the Youth for Understanding and YMCA world camp programs. In addition, she serves on the city of San Mateo Citizens Review Committee and has cochaired a local community center's Thanksgiving food drive. Ms. Noor has received numerous academic awards including recognition as an outstanding student in both English and social studies. Mr. Speaker, Carolyn Noor is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame as a Young Woman of Excellence.

Mrs. ESHOO

Mrs. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pegi Morton Young and her upcoming induction into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame. After giving birth to a son with severe cerebral palsy in 1986, Pegi Morton Young cofounded the Bridge School, which is an innovative educational program for children with severe speech and physical impairments. She served as the unpaid director of the school for 6 years and remains active as president of the board of directors. Under Ms. Young's exceptional leadership, the Bridge School has been certified by the California State Department of Education as a non- public school and received community-wide praise for its outstanding program. Her commitment to the community is never-ending, and she is always the first to volunteer for a project. Mr. Speaker, Pegi Morton Young is an outstanding citizen, and I commend her for her remarkable commitment and contributions to our community. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting her as she is being inducted into the San Mateo County Women's Hall of Fame.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to insert into the Congressional Record a speech made by William B. Gould IV, who is Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law at Stanford University, and one of my most outstanding constituents. His remarks before the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States are a fascinating discourse on the significance of President Lincoln's views on labor law and their relationship to the service of African-Americans in the U.S. military during the Civil War. The impressive historical scholarship in this speech is greatly enhanced by Chairman Gould's effective use of passages from the diary of his great grandfather, William B. Gould, who served for over 3 years in the U.S. Navy during the conflict. I urge my colleagues to put Chairman Gould's speech on their reading lists. Lincoln, Labor, and the Black Military: The Legacy Provided (Delivered by William B. Gould IV, February 11, 1995) ``I heard the glad tidings that the Stars and Stripes have been planted over the Capitol of the Confederacy by the invincible Grant. While we honor the living soldiers who have done so much we must not forget to whisper for fear of disturbing the glorious sleep of the men who have fallen. Martyrs to the cause of Right and Equality.''--Diary of William B. Gould, April 15, 1865. These are the words of my great-grandfather written 130 years ago at the time of Appomattox. They reflect the thoughts and passion of one of our country's black naval veterans of the Civil War and his commitment to the military initiatives waged by President Lincoln. It is meet and right that we come here this evening to honor the memory of Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States, properly known throughout the world as the Great Emancipator. The New World's central political and social achievement, the Emancipation Proclamation which President Lincoln authored, transcends the ages and future generations. And his ideas about democracy and the rights of all people constitute the central vision of the American democratic system today. As the sons of Union officers who fought in the Civil War, you know better than most that this 186th anniversary of Lincoln's birthday marks anew the ongoing struggle to free our country from the legacy of the odious institution of slavery so that all people may live out their lives and fulfill their aspirations without the actuality or fear of arbitrary limitation. One of my law professors used to say that the ``greatest constitutional decision ever rendered occurred when Pickett's charge failed at Gettysburg.'' The legacy of Appomattox and all that led to it resonates throughout our society to this evening here in Washington as part of the unceasing struggle against all arbitrary barriers which afflict mankind. And both Gettysburg and Appomattox produced the great Civil War amendments to the Constitution, which reversed the infamous Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court declared blacks to be property constitutionally. The amendments, in turn, have provided our country with the historical framework for both the Supreme Court's great Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 ruling condemning separate but equal as a denial of equal protection and also the modern civil rights movement as well as the legislation that it produced. Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, our most comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation relating to the workplace, is a lineal descendant of the previous century's developments. I am not a Lincoln or Civil War scholar. Indeed, I find the amount of literature about both subjects to be daunting--and, accordingly, I know that you do not expect a scholarly examination of President Lincoln from me. But there are matters which have and do involve me both practically and professionally with Lincoln and his times. The first is that I am the fourteenth Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and, as such, administer an agency and interpret a statute which both seek to implement some of Lincoln's most basic views on labor. The second is that I am the great-grandson of the first William Benjamin Gould who, along with seven other ``contraband'' (seized property--the appellation which General Benjamin Butler gave to escaped slaves) set sail in a small boat from Cape Fear, North Carolina and boarded the USS Cambridge on September 22, 1862, the day that President Lincoln announced his intent to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. You will know that the Proclamation states in relevant part: ``And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition [the freed slaves held by those in rebellion], will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.'' And thus it was that William B. Gould joined the United States Navy and served as landsman and steward on the North Atlantic Blockade and subsequently served on vessels visiting Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal and Spain, chasing the Confederate ships which were built by their undercover allies. In 1864 the American Minister Charles Francis Adams had notified the British government that if the Alabama and the Georgia--two iron clad ``rams'' built by the British for the Confederacy--were allowed to go to sea, this would be construed by the United States as a declaration of war. William B. Gould sailed with the steam frigate Niagara for the European station to join other vessels such as the Kearsarge to keep, in my great-grandfather's words, a ``sharp lookout'' for these vessels. The Niagara's destination was the Bay of Biscay where she eventually engaged in battle. William B. Gould's service ended on September 29, 1865 when he made the following entry in his diary: ``At the Navy Yard [Charlestown, Massachusetts] at five Oclock I received my Discharge being three years and nine days in the service of Uncle Samuel and glad am I to receive it . . . [pay] of four hundred and twenty four dollars. So end my service in the Navy of the United States of America.'' I did not know the first William B. Gould for he died--in Dedham, Massachusetts where he resided from 1871 onward-- thirteen years before my birth. I did not know my grandfather, William B. Gould, Jr., a Spanish-American War veteran, for he was to die nine years later in 1932. But the third William B. Gould was my greatest inspiration in my most formative years--and my belief is that the values and culture which he attempted to transmit to me were very much a part of the lives of the first two gentlemen to whom I have referred. Truly then, President Lincoln's views and policies have had a major impact upon my own life. As Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, I have a responsibility to implement a statute which promotes the right of employees to band together for the purpose of protecting or improving their own working conditions, to join unions, to engage in collective bargaining and to be free from various forms of discrimination. This statute, enacted as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in 1935, is one of the country's proudest achievements, expressing the policy that the protection of ``the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection'' should be encouraged. In recent years, a number of scholars and critics, like myself, took note of the fact that the statute has not been working well in implementing these objectives because of poor administrative processes and ineffective remedies. Some of these matters can be and are being cured by us at the Board and some can be only addressed by Congress. I hope to do what I can to make continued progress in the former category before I depart from Washington and return to California a few years down the road when my term ends. I enthusiastically support the views contained in the preamble and have made my position known in books, articles, and speeches. In many respects, the fundamentally similar views of President Lincoln were a precursor of our own 1935 legislation. Recall what Lincoln said to the New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association on March 21, 1864: ``The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues and kindreds.''\1\ \1\Footnotes are at end of speech. As the Presidential campaign of 1860 unfolded, Lincoln stated his philosophy in these terms: ``When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life . . . I want every man to have the chance--and I believe a black man is entitled to it--in which he can better his condition--when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.''\2\ In the same speech, Lincoln makes clear that the right to strike is integral to a democratic society, a policy reflected in the language of Sections 7 and 13 of the National Labor Relations Act and in the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 which preceded it. Just a few weeks ago, President Clinton took note of one of our law's limitations in his statement criticizing the Bridgestons/Firestone Company's use of permanent striker replacements, noting that such tactics show the need to enact legislation prohibiting such a denial of the fundamental right to strike. It bears note that Lincoln's view of labor and the right to strike ran against the tide of laissez-faire thinking which predominated in the previous century--thinking which has reared its head again toward the close of this century, one of its forms being the repressive striker replacement weapon of which President Clinton spoke. President Lincoln supported the right to strike and spoke out in the spring of 1860 in support of a well-organized strike conducted by the boot and shoe workers in New England. Lincoln regarded the right to strike by free labor as a ``virtue, not a failing, of free society,'' as G.S. Boritt has written in ``Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream.''\3\ Boritt also notes that during the Civil War several delegations of strikers from the Machinists and Blacksmiths Union of New York visited the White House and spoke to the President about their position. States Boritt: ``The labor representatives took great comfort from their interview, reasoning that although their employers refused to deal with them, Lincoln received them. `If any man should again say that combinations of working men are not good,' they concluded, `let them point to the Chief Magistrate.' They even quoted the President as saying `I know that in almost every case of strikes, the men have just cause for complaint.' It is rather likely that the union men quoted Lincoln correctly.''\4\ Of course, Lincoln's view of labor was closely related to his view of slavery. Again, in 1860 he said: ```Owned labor' would compete with free labor so as to `degrade' the latter.'' And, in an earlier and lengthy speech to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society in Milwaukee on September 30, 1859, he noted that the so-called ``mud-sill'' theory was that a hired laborer is ``fatally fixed in that condition for life'' and thus his condition is the same as that of a slave.\5\ But as Lincoln noted, this theory proceeded upon the assumption that labor and education were incompatible and that one could not improve oneself and one's family through free labor. Lincoln's view was antithetical to all of this. He held the view that workers should be able to rise to new horizons. And this view is closely related to another held by the President which has similar contemporary implications. Because Lincoln believed that all people could improve themselves and thus rise out of their station if opportunity were afforded them, unlike other proponents of the rights of labor, he did not see the working class as a well-defined unit, notwithstanding his endorsement of its use of the strike to defend its interests and act jointly in its dealings with employers. To some extent, said Professor Boritt, Lincoln shared the view that there was a harmony between the capital and labor and that it ought to be promoted so as to enhance the ability of workers to rise out of their class. Again, these views resonate with us today as Congress considers proposals to enhance employee participation and proposed amendments to the National Labor Relations Act which will achieve this goal. I believe that President Lincoln would be sympathetic with contemporary efforts to promote employee involvement in the workplace and thus enhance our industry's global competitiveness--so long as such reforms do not interfere with the ability of the workers and unions to defend their own positions, a proposition that I have long advanced.\6\ The view that an individual was not ``fatally fixed'' in a particular condition forever constitutes the philosophy which prevailed in the Civil War and through the Emancipation Proclamation and the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment which Lincoln sponsored before his assassination. Again, this is reflected anew in last month's State of the Union address by President Clinton when, in advocating new minimum wage legislation, he said that the worker who works must have his ``reward'' and that the job of government is to ``expand opportunity . . . to empower people to make the most of their own lives. . . .'' This is what is at the heart of modern democracy and the Bill of Rights for workers in the private sector which are continued in the National Labor Relations Act and similar statutes. And this has been the assumption behind the struggle for equality which has attempted to make good on the promise of emancipation in the previous century. My great-grandfather, a mason who worked with his mind and hands and established a business as a contractor, employing other workers in Dedham, Massachusetts, benefited from the above-noted philosophy and the quoted portions of the Emancipation Proclamation. Said William B. Gould on March 8, 1863, two months after its issuance: ``Read . . . the Proclamation of Emancipation . . . verry [sic] good.'' The policy, of course, had evolved in fits and starts. As Benjamin Quarles has noted in ``The Negro in the Civil War,'' General Butler was the first to devise a policy of acceptance of blacks who wanted to fight with the North. This was, as Quarles noted, the most ``insistent'' problem faced by the Lincoln Administration in 1861 and 1862. It emerged, as he has noted, after the Union defeat at Bull Run which was attributable ``in part to the Confederate military defenses constructed by slaves. . . .'' Congress enacted legislation which provided for the forfeiture of all slaves whose masters had permitted them to be used in the military or naval service of the Confederacy. Quarles notes that the 1861 legislation ``strengthened the hand of the small band of Union officers from the beginning had been in favor of freeing the slaves.'' Two military initiatives--one designed by John C. Fremont in July 1861, ``The Pathfinder,'' and the other undertaken by Major General Dave Hunter in the summer of 1862--were both rescinded by Lincoln out of his concern with preserving the allegiance of the border states. The Confiscation Act enacted on July 17, 1862, declaring free all slaves who were owned by those in rebellion was the next step in the process. This had the effect of increasing the number of fugitives in whom the United States Navy expressed a particular interest so as to make use of the information that they could provide about enemy locations and movements. As summer became fall the problem became more ``insistent.'' Three days after my great-grandfather boarded the USS Cambridge came this report of Commander G.H. Scott regarding the blockage of Wilmington: ``Fourteen contrabands have reached the `Monticello' and `Penobscot' and several the `Cambridge' within a few days, and as the vessels have not room for them, will you please direct what disposition shall be made of them?'' We know what disposition was made of William B. Gould. On October 3, 1862, he said: ``All of us shipped today for three years, first taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Government of Uncle Samuel.'' Thus he, and eventually I, benefited from both the Confiscation Act and the new policy expressed in the Emancipation Proclamation which was not to be effective for another three months. His service was made possible because of it. This was then his opportunity--and his observations, hopes and views are chronicled in the diary which he kept between 1862 and 1865. On the perils of the seas and their storminess, he says: ``[T]he gale still blows fresh and the seas running verry [sic] high. We shipped several through the night and one-- fill'd the Ward Room with Water. I have got ducked awfully last night. It was worth something to be upon the Deck. Although there is much danger in a storm there is something very sublime to hear the roar of the storm. The hissing of the Waves, the whistling of the Rigging and the Cannon like report of the torn sail and above all the stern word of the commander and the--sound of the boatswain's pipe all adds to the grandeur of the scene. For there is something grand in a storm. Allnight with eager eyes both Officers and Men paced the deck watching our Foretopsail, feeling in a measure secure as long as we could sail at all. It has it stood through the night. There was no sign of the storm abateing [sic]. All the galley fire is out and nothing to eat is the cry and almost nothing to wear on account of the Water. Shine out fair sun and smote the Waves that we may proceed on our course and all be saved.'' And on December 25 and December 27 of 1862, he had this to say about the loneliness of his work off New Inlet: ``This being Christmas I think of the table at home . . . cruised around as usual. Fine weather but very lonesome in the absence of news and we all had the Blues.'' While on the North Atlantic Blockade with the USS Cambridge he says on November 17, 1862: ``A sail was reported close under the land right ahead. We gave chase. When within range of our boat we told them good morning in the shape of a shot for her to heave to.'' But then he describes the difficulties that arose: ``To this [the shot] they took no notice. We sent another which fell under her stern . . . the ship stood for the Beach. Shot after shot was set after her but they heeded not . . . we immediately manned the first cutter and sent her . . . to board and destroy her. We also sent two other boats to lend assistance . . . [after sending a line to these boats so that they could return to the main ship] . . . they got the Boat all ready to come out when a body of Rebel Soldiers dashed over the hill at the double quick and all were prisoners. We could see them from the ship marching off our men and dragging the boats after them. We lost eleven men and three officers. Rather a bad day's work.'' as testified to by him in this entry in the summer of 1864 off Portugal: ``[W]e made a steamer and stood for her. She kept on her course without any until we got within 5 miles of her when she suddenly changed her course. We beat to Quarters and Fired a shot. She showed the English collors [sic]. We Fired another. When she came to be boarded her and found her to be the Rebel Privateer `Georgia' from Liverpool on her way to refit a cruiser. But the next cruise that she makes will be for Uncle Samuel . . . this capture makes a crew feel verry [sic] proud.'' While in the English Channel: ``[W]e took on board an English Pilot who brought the thrice glorious news of the sinking of the `Alabama' by `Kearsarge' off Cherbough . . . [A]though we have been disappointment to us in not getting a shot at the `Alabama' we are satisfied that she is out of the way.'' And in 1864 while serving on the Niagara he said about the people that he saw in Spain: ``[I]t looks very strange in this country which nature have lavished with riches that there should be so many Poor People.'' And again on the shameful treatment of black soldiers on his ship: ``Yesterday about 900 men of the Maryland (colored) regiment came on board (they being transfered to the Navy) and took dinner then departed for Portsmouth, New Hampshire. They were treated very rough by the crew. They refused to let them eat out of the mess pans and call them all kinds of names. One man [had] his watch stolen from him by these scoundrels. In all they were treated shamefully.'' On the proposed colonization of blacks to Africa or the Caribbean: ``We see by the papers that President [Johnson] intimates colonization for the colored people of the United States. This move of his must and shall be resisted. We were born under the Flag of the union and never will we know no other. My sentiment is the sentiment of the people of the States.''\8\ All of this ended in 1865 and provided William B. Gould with his chance at life. Sometimes I think about his thoughts as he walked the streets of Wilmington a young man and what would have been had he stayed in North Carolina and the events of those four critical years had not taken place. Most certainly his great-grandson would not be here today addressing you as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. I am privileged to have this opportunity in 1995 to contribute to the public good in the most inspirational and progressive Administration in Washington since the 1960s--one which is unabashedly committed to the principles of those who fell 130 years ago. My hope is that I can reflect well upon the first William B. Gould and the chance that he made for me by rising out of his ``fixed station,'' to use Lincoln's words, and I am all too aware of the limitations of time as we move rapidly toward a new millennium. As William B. Gould said on December 31, 1863, in New York harbor: ``We are obliged knock off on the account of the storm. It blew very hard from South East. The old year of `1863' went out furiously as if it was angry with all the world because it had finished the time allotted to it. Sooner or later we must follow.'' My first major impression during my first trip outside of the United States in 1962, as a student at the London School of Economics, is of the grand and majestic statue of President Lincoln which sits in Parliament Square today. Now I live in Washington within a mile of the great Lincoln Memorial in which his brooding historical omnipresence is made so manifest. You and I, the entire nation and the world honor President Lincoln and his policies tonight. Both personally and professionally they are with me always as is the legacy provided by him and so many others in what my great- grandfather called: ``[T]he holiest of all causes, Liberty and Union.''\9\ footnotes \1\Basler, Roy P., Editor, ``The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,'' Volume VII, page 259, (1953). \2\Ibid., Volume IV, pp. 24-5. \3\Boritt, Gabor, S., ``Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream,'' page 184, (1978). \4\Ibid., page 185. \5\Basler, Roy P., Editor, ``The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,'' Volume III, pp. 477-8 (1953). \6\Of course, I advanced such ideas in the context of proposals for comprehensive labor law reform. See W. Gould, ``Agenda for Reform: The Future of Employment Relationships and the Law,'' pp. 109-150 (1993). \7\B. Quarles, ``The Negro in the Civil War,'' pp. 59-61, 64 (1953). On blacks in the U.S. Navy see generally, D. Valuska, ``The African American in the Union Navy: 1861-1865,'' (1993). \8\Of course, President Lincoln had earlier proposed colonization within the context of compensated emancipation. \9\Diary May 6, 1864. The full text actually states, ``[H]eard of the departure of one battalion of the 5th Regiment Massachusetts Cavalry from Camp Meigs for Washington, D.C. May God protect them while defending the holiest of all causes, Liberty and Union.'' As William B. Gould III wrote in an entry adjacent to the diary: ``Camp Meigs was in Readville, Massachusetts, about two miles east of where William B. Gould made his home at 303 Milton Street, East Dedham, Massachusetts.''

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, it is said in every war the first casualty is the truth and this is certainly the case in the Republican revolution. While the GOP claims that its budget cuts will not hurt American children, the truth is that children are the ones in the direct line of fire. Mr. Speaker, 43 percent of the children in my district--18,625 children--will be impacted by the Republicans' cuts in the School Lunch Program. A lunch may be something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take for granted, but for some of these children it is their only meal of the day. This meal provides the nourishment they need to learn and perform better so they can become productive citizens. The mantra of the day is block grants. Well this one needs to be closely examined. The truth is there will be less money in the block grants and the Governors don't have to use this money for school lunches. To make matters worse, the Republicans have eliminated national nutritional standards which prevented ketchup from being counted as a vegetable. Mr. Speaker, the mean-spirited attacks on our children must stop. I urge my colleagues to oppose these devastating cuts--for our children and for the future of our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment which ensures that the risk assessment bill does not override existing laws. The Boehlert language is necessary to safeguard critical safety and health regulations and the people which these regulations are designed to protect. Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of this bill, the Boehlert amendment is needed because this legislation is poorly drafted, hastily reviewed, and now before us without a clear understanding of its consequences. Let me give my colleagues one ominous example of what we are faced with here: During the Commerce Committee markup of the bill, I offered an amendment which highlighted the unintended dangers posed to women's health by this bill, specifically breast cancer. What I did was subject one bill--the Mammography Quality Standards Act--to the requirements of the risk assessment bill. Not only did this example show how dangerous this bill is to women's health and mammography standards, it demonstrated how little the framers understand it and the effects it will have on current laws and regulations. The Mammography Quality Standards Act helps ensure sound mammography services by regulating facilities which provide mammograms. Under the bill considered by the Commerce Committee, the FDA, which implements the mammography act would have needed to perform a series of complex, costly, and time-consuming risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses before those regulations could take effect. As a result, this important law could have gone unenforced or been subject to lengthy court procedures. Mr. Chairman, breast cancer is already the second leading cause of death in American women and 50,000 women die each year from this disease. We all know that without a known cure, the key to battling this devastating killer is early detection. Mammograms can detect breast cancer up to 2 years before a woman or her doctor can feel a lump and if the disease is found at these early stages, it is 90-100 percent curable. Prior to passage of the Mammography Quality Standards Act, there were no national, comprehensive quality standards for mammograms that applied to all facilities. Quality needs to be assured at these facilities--studies show that faulty diagnoses or early tumors due to poor image quality or incorrect interpretations result in delayed treatment, more costly medical procedures, and higher mortality rates. Mr. Chairman, when I offered my amendment at the Commerce Committee I asked if the mammography bill would be affected by the risk assessment bill. With the assistance of the majority counsel, the majority response was ``yes'' the risk assessment bill would affect provisions of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Despite this acknowledgement by the majority, my amendment to exempt critical women's health protections from this drawn out process was defeated along party lines. In fact, one of my Republican colleagues said he could not support the amendment because it would prevent us from setting appropriate priorities--in other words, there might be higher priorities than providing women with good-quality mammograms; there might be higher risks than the deadly disease of breast cancer. [[Page H2358]] After the committee reported out the bill, I received a memo from the chairman of the Health and Environment Subcommittee informing me that after taking another look at the bill, the Mammography Quality Standards Act would not be subject to the requirements of the risk assessment bill because it is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services which is not subject to the requirements of the bill. The chairman said in the memo that the point would be clarified in the committee's report. This point was never clarified in the committee's report. And upon checking myself, I learned that although HHS has statutory authority over the bill, the FDA, which is subject to the bill, implements the Mammography Quality Standards Act and therefore has administrative authority over the bill. The large bells went off. The reason why I take this time to explain all of this, which is a long story but a very important one, is that if we take the laws of the land today, and have to subject them to the language, and I only use this one example, the Mammography Standards Act, it does not pass muster. So I pay tribute to my colleague from New York and to the bipartisanship of this effort with this amendment. I think it is needed. I hope I have given a very good example of why it is needed.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ambassador Laurence W. ``Bill'' Lane, Jr., an outstanding citizen of California's 14th Congressional District who has been selected to receive the National Parks and Conservation Association's 1994 William Penn Mott, Jr., Conservationist of the Year Award in honor of his lifelong commitment to parks. From the moment Ambassador Lane arrived in California in 1928, he has distinguished himself in the fields of conservation, government, and commerce. While a student at Stanford University, he was a packer and mountain guide in Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks. Over the years, his love of nature led him to chair the California Desert Conservation Area Advisory Committee, serve on the President's National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, chair the President's National Parks Centennial Commission, and serve as the Secretary of the Interior's representative on the Steering Committee for the 75th anniversary of the National Parks. Most deservedly, he is a recipient of the Secretary of the Interior's Conservation Service Award. In government, he has served at the international level as U.S. Ambassador to Australia and Nauru, as well as Commissioner General and Chairman of the Foreign Delegation of the International Ocean Exposition in Japan with the rank of Ambassador. I am also very proud of the service he provided closer to home as the first elected mayor and councilman of Portola Valley, where he currently resides. Ambassador Lane became well known to many people as the publisher of Sunset magazine and chairman of Lane Publishing Co., now merged with Time Warner. He is still a consultant to Time Warner and a member of the board of Time, Inc. Despite all of his activities, he has still found time to be a devoted husband to his wife, Jean, and a caring father for their three children--Sharon, Bob, and Brenda. Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Lane is truly an exceptional individual who has performed outstanding work for our nation and our national parks. I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting him for being awarded the prestigious William Penn Mott, Jr., Conservationist of the Year Award.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Bury, an outstanding citizen of California's 14th Congressional District who was honored as the 1995 Outstanding Citizen of the Year at the Sequoia Awards in recognition of his extraordinary contributions and commitment to our community and our country. Bob Bury served with distinction for six terms on the city council of Redwood City, including several terms as mayor. He has also served as a city port commissioner, a member of the housing and community development board, the Casa de Redwood Senior Housing Project, and the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Bob Bury is an exemplary civic leader and volunteer who is a model for others to emulate. He has given decades of generous service to such worthy groups as the Kainos program for mentally challenged adults and the Boy Scouts. He was an early supporter of the Fair Oaks Community Center, and has been a tireless advocate for the development of a park on the east side of Redwood City. Over the years, he has become a beloved community figure, an advocate for community services for all who need them and an effective, humane and generous leader. His lifelong partner in life, June Bury, and their children and grandchildren have helped make our community the special place it is today. Mr. Speaker, Bob Bury is an exceptional individual who has strengthened our Nation as he has worked to build in every way his own community. I am privileged to call him my friend and urge my colleagues to join me in saluting him for receiving the Outstanding Citizen of the Year Award and for his incomparable generosity and tireless service to our country.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the first spending package produced by the majority after passing the balanced budget amendment increases the deficit by $645 million over 5 years. The Obey substitute cuts the deficit in fiscal year 1995 and is budget-neutral over 5 years. It allows the Secretary of Defense to protect critical programs like the Technology Reinvention Program which leverages commercial technology in a way that benefits both the Defense Department and the commercial sector. Mr. Chairman, in a front page story yesterday, the Washington Post reported that our Nation's military leaders are increasingly convinced modern warfare is experiencing revolutionary technological changes. National security experts believe those nations who do not maintain a technological edge will face serious threats to their security. Now, at a time when America needs to make wise investments in defense technology, the Republicans' budget-busting shopping cart of defense priorities is full of last year's models and outdated strategy. The Obey substitute reduces the deficit, cuts pork and allows budget priorities to be based on national security needs--not political manifestos; and the safety of our soldiers--not politicians' reelection campaigns. I urge Members to oppose the bill and support the Obey amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding young woman and a prized constituent, Lauren Horowitz. Lauren is a student at La Entrada School and recently played the lead role of Diana in the production of ``Anne of Green Gables.'' This outstanding performance was put on by the California Theatre Center in Sunnyvale--the only child-centered theater program in the region--and exemplifies the very best of what the arts have to offer our young people. Lauren was inspired to pursue her interest in acting by her teachers. Several little girls attending the play were inspired, in turn, by Lauren's ability to bring the role of Diana to life and asked for her autograph--the highest form of appreciation for any artist. By showing succeeding generations of young Americans a productive way to use their talents, energy, and self-discipline, the arts have proven to be a valuable asset for our children, our community, California, and our country. Mr. Speaker, Lauren Horowitz is a young woman with a bright future ahead of her in whatever profession she may choose. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating her for her winning performance and showing all of us the true value of the arts.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 7. This bill zeros out money to improve the technology on proven weapon systems that help save our soldiers' lives and instead wastes it on star wars. This bill kills the Technology Reinvestment Project and knocks the legs out from under companies which have already started significant technology development projects. For example, Silicon Video Corp. in California is working on flat panel display technology so in times of war we will not be reliant on other countries for this critical technology. Now H.R. 7 abandons funding for this key technology which is essential to every one of our weapons systems, and instead reallocates the money to star wars. The defense application of flat panel displays is not debatable. The cuts in H.R. 7 dangerously reduce our armed services' technological edge over potential enemies, all in the name of star wars. We need budget priorities based on national security needs, not political manifestos; for our soldiers' safety, not politicians' reelection campaigns. I urge members to oppose H.R. 7. It is wrong-minded, and it attacks our national security.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge Members to support the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment, and to oppose any legislation which would cut last year's funding for community policing. In my view, Congress should listen to local officials. There is, I think, some confusion here when we talk about ``local.'' The bill that became law, that was signed into law last year, came about as a result of the Congress listening to local officials when it came to fighting crime on our streets. I think that there is a blind march going forward to fulfill an ideological agenda dictated from Washington, and I do not think that is what people in our local communities want or need. Mr. Chairman, according to a recent National League of Cities survey, municipal officials, those people closest in our communities, the ones that are elected and serve closest to the crime problem, believe that last year's crime bill is better than the alternative that is being offered. Their executive director, Donald Borut, summed up the survey results by saying ``Municipal officials believe that last year's Crime Bill struck the right balance. There is serious concern about the current efforts at revision under consideration in Congress.'' I am continuing this quote: ``Last summer's bill has been in effect barely four months, and we believe it should be given a chance before attempts are made to tamper with it.'' Mr. Chairman, instead of listening to local officials who have first- hand experience with community policing and crime prevention programs, some or our colleagues are busy essentially telling them what they think is best. It is on its head. It is turned the wrong way. As a result, Mr. Chairman, Jerry Abramson, the mayor of Louisville, KY, and the former chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, recently said: What many in Congress refuse to understand is that the police chiefs and their departments are even more vehement for prevention programs. Again and again, I have heard police chiefs tell Congressmen that the police would infinitely prefer to work with 6-year-olds in a gym or a church rather than wait 10 years and have to fight them in an alley. Mr. Chairman, the Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, IN, Paul Helmke, agrees, He stated that During the fighting over last year's bill, you heard a lot of talk from the opponents about how when they call 911, they don't want the phone answered by a social worker. In my city, folks would prefer a situation where they didn't have to call 911 in the first place. Not only is it a critical mistake to restructure the crime bill, as is being proposed, but I believe it would be disastrous to reduce the amount of money that is targeted for community policing and is already working. These funds mean more cops on the street, police, not pork. The math is strikingly simple: more cops means less crime. I believe the administration has moved aggressively to get these funds to our communities, and it is already working. It is working in the communities that I represent. I recently received a letter from the county sheriff in San Mateo County, CA, talking about the additional deputy sheriffs that have been hired as a result of this, and looking forward to placing more local money, which is accountability, in my view, and I come from the board of supervisors, local government, with the Federal dollars. Just last week we received word that there are more small communities in my district that are willing to put up this money and to make use of this for community policing. Why? Because they know it works, and it is what people in the community want. One of those small communities, Mr. Chairman, is East Palo Alto, CA. It is a town that bore the distinction, unhappily, of being labeled the murder capital of America in 1993, because it had the highest per capita homicide rate of any city in our country. However, thanks to the efforts of community policing, more cops were put on the beat and the math worked. It worked. It worked. It is still working. East Palo Alto's homicide rate dropped from 42 murders.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to summarize by saying this is not an issue that should be fought on the backs of those that are elected to serve in local government. But there have been sins of the past, the LEAA program. I think it is important to point out how those dollars were misused. I would like to show this. I would rather have community police than this. This is what Federal dollars were spent for in the past. community would rather have police in their automobiles, community policing and working with the community. This did not work. This was pork. We have a decision to make today by supporting the Schumer-Conyers- Chapman amendment and saying that we want police and not pork, we want to retain what works, and we want to listen to law enforcement, schoolboard members, those that serve in local government to make optimum use of our Federal dollars for community policing.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Rich Hughes, an outstanding citizen who has provided invaluable professional service to hundreds of cities, counties and municipalities and who was recently elected by his community to serve on the Sea Ranch Board of Directors. Rich Hughes is a founding partner of Hughes, Perry and Associates, a consulting firm which has to date served over 750 city, county and special district agencies. His great skill and professional expertise have made him a respected consultant to local community leaders on a host of difficult management, planning and fiscal issues. He is regarded by his clients and his colleagues as the best in this field. Rich Hughes is also an outstanding leader in the Sea Ranch community. Sea Ranch lies on 10 miles of pristine Sonoma Coastline 110 miles north of San Francisco. The community was founded in 1965 and has received numerous planning, environmental and architectural awards. It has an international reputation and has been studied by architects and planners throughout the world. Rich Hughes now serves on the Sea Ranch Board of Directors and formerly served as Chairperson of the Long Range Planning and Security Committees. His leadership and consensus-building skills were instrumental in the effort he spearheaded to design and construct a new community center which was approved by his colleagues on the Board. Mr. Speaker, Rich Hughes is an extraordinary leader and devoted community servant. I'm proud of his professionalism and commitment to making a community work well and privileged to call him my friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting him on the recent occasion of his being elected to the Sea Ranch Board and for all the good he has chosen to do with his life.