Paul Kanjorski

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the accomplishments of my very good friend, Attorney Richard M. Goldberg, to the attention of my colleagues. This month, Dick will receive the prestigious S.J. Strauss Lodge of the B'nai B'rith Community Service Award at the group's 55th Annual Lincoln Day Dinner. I am pleased and proud to have been asked to participate in this event. The Community Service Award is presented each year to an outstanding citizen who has made a valuable contribution to the fabric of community life through courageous leadership and dedication to humanity. Dick Goldberg is a shining example of such leadership. Those of us who know Dick know of his extreme love of country and his pride in having served for thirty years in the United States Army Reserve. Prior to his retirement, Colonel Goldberg was Chief of Staff for the 79th Army Reserve Command at the Willow Grove Air Station in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. He was awarded the Legion of Merit, Army Achievement Medal, Humanitarian Services Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Pennsylvania Meritorious Service Medal, Pennsylvania Commendation Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals, two Armed Forces Reserve Medals, and five Army Reserve Components Achievement Medals. Dick Goldberg has had an equally outstanding legal career. A member of the prestigious local law firm of Hourigan, Kluger, and Quinn, Dick has also served as Luzerne County Solicitor since 1984. A native of Wilkes-Barre, Dick received his bachelor of arts degree from Dickinson College and law degrees from the Dickinson, Pennsylvania State University, and Temple University. He was cited as an Outstanding Young Man of America in 1972 and has been honored with the Valley Forge Freedom Foundation Award twice. He has served as chairman of the Young Lawyers Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, membership chairman of the Young Lawyers Section of the American Bar Association, chairman of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Unauthorized Practices Committee, and chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee of the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Dick served as president of the Wilkes-Barre Law and Library Association and currently serves on the Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. Dick Goldberg's dedicated service to his community is well documented by a long list of memberships and board seats. He presently is a member of the Board of Trustees of Wyoming Seminary and is a director of the Jewish Home of Eastern Pennsylvania, the United Way of Wyoming Valley, and Jewish Family Services. An Eagle Scout himself, he is active with the local Boy Scouts of America. Dick is a past president of Temple Israel and the Jewish Community Center. He chaired the Jewish National Fund, Temple Israel School Board, Luzerne County Heart Fund Drive and the Osterhout Library Society Campaign. He has served as president of the Reserve Officers Association. Mr. Speaker, throughout my legal career and my tenure in the House of Representatives, I have been privileged to work with Attorney Dick Goldberg many times. I consider him to be a good friend and an outstanding community leader. I am proud to join with his wife, Rosemary, his family, his friends, and the community in congratulating Dick on this prestigious honor. I extend my very best wishes on this momentous occasion and for continued good health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the fortieth anniversary of an infamous day in Pennsylvania's Eleventh Congressional District, the Knox Mine Disaster. This Sunday, a state historical marker will be unveiled to commemorate the tragedy. I am pleased to have been asked to participate in this event. January of 1959 brought unseasonably high temperatures and drenching rains to the Wyoming Valley. The Susquehanna River began to surge wildly and reached near flood stage by the evening of January 21. Most area residents were worried about their homes and businesses and gave little thought to the potential disaster underground. Miners at the Knox Coal Company's River Slope mine in Luzerne County had expressed fears for weeks about the conditions at the mine, but their complaints fell on deaf ears. On the morning of January 22, seventy-five miners headed for work in the May Shaft and six miners headed to the River Slope. The six laborers soon summoned a veteran miner to hear the shrill cracking sounds of the ceiling props. As he stepped into the mine to investigate, the roof of the mine gave way and water poured into the mine. The miners scrambled out of the mine to safety and quickly reported the flooding to mine officials who ordered evacuation of all adjoining shafts. Thirty-three of the miners quickly escaped the churning waters as the river took over the mine, but forty-five men remained trapped below as the river swirled into the breach. Thirty-three miners eventually made their way up an abandoned air shaft located a few hundred feet upriver from the breach. Twelve men remained missing. Mr. Speaker, hope for these twelve brave miners endured for several days as family members kept vigil on the river bank. Eventually, methane gas began to flow from the mine and the officials had no choice but to end the rescue attempt. Each of the survivors had his story of escape and told the stories of those who did not. For sixty-four hours after the disaster, the river poured more than two and a half million gallons of water into the shafts each minute. The cave-in allowed more than ten billion gallons of river water to surge underground. For three days, crews pushed, pulled, and hoisted fifty ton railroad cars into the void. They added four hundred one-ton coal cars and at least twenty-five thousand cubic yards of dirt and rocks. Finally, the giant hole was plugged. Pumping began to save the other shafts and search teams were dispatched to look for bodies. Mr. Speaker, the Knox Mine Disaster was the beginning of the end of anthracite coal mining in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Officials eventually discovered the company had illegally dug beneath the river bed which extended far beyond legal mining boundaries. No proper surveying had been done and although industry standard was thirty-five feet of rock cover, the miners had followed company orders and quarried up to a mere six feet below the river. Knox Coal Company had ignored orders from federal inspectors to cease operations. Several company officials were indicted. Although deep mining continued in the Northeast into the 1970's, the high cost of resulting new safety regulations coupled with declining demand eventually ended deep mining in the northern coal field. Mr. Speaker, the Knox Mine Disaster is a turning point in the history of Northeastern Pennsylvania. The image of the grieving families huddled along the banks of the river, exhausted survivors climbing out of the earth and huge train cars being heaved into the whirlpool is still fresh in the minds of most of the area's residents. The disaster is commemorated in the local press every year and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will dedicate a historical marker this year. I join with the families of both the victims and the survivors of this horrible disaster in commemorating their bravery and remembering their sacrifice.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring a momentous occasion to the attention of my colleagues--the Centennial Celebration of the St. John the Baptist Church in Larksville, Pennsylvania. On Sunday, January 24, the community will gather to commemorate this anniversary and I am pleased to have been asked to participate. His Excellency, the Most Reverend James C. Timlin, D.D. of the Archdiocese of Scranton will celebrate a Mass of Thanksgiving to begin the festivities. The church was founded by a group of Polish immigrants, mostly peasant farmers from Galicia, who settled in the Wyoming Valley to work in the coal mines. Toward the end of 1898, a group who had been attending another local church, decided to construct a Polish Roman Catholic Church in Larksville. They formed a committee to meet with the Bishop and obtained permission to begin construction. A wooden frame church was completed in December 1898 with Reverend R.A. Nowicki as Pastor. The church was officially dedicated in February 1899. A school and parish meeting hall were constructed soon after and the parish continued to grow. On December 18, 1919 tragedy struck the parish when fire destroyed the church, school, and part of the rectory. The sturdy immigrant parish was not to be discouraged and quickly began the task of rebuilding. Under the leadership of Reverend Paul A. Kopicki, construction of a new St. John the Baptist Church began in May of 1920. On December 25, 1920, the new church was dedicated at midnight mass. The new church was reborn spiritually as well, with Father Kopicki starting the parish picnic, minstrel shows, and children's talent shows. A choir was formed under the leadership of Benjamin Jachimowicz. By 1928, the church had a new rectory and by 1935, a new school was opened. The school, which was run by Bernadine nuns, closed in 1959 due to a shortage of teachers and lack of space. Mr. Speaker, the list of priests who have been spiritual leaders of St. John's is lengthy. On September 7, 1971, my good friend Father John Masakowski became the twelfth pastor of the church. Father John is from my hometown of Nanticoke and brought years of experience and wisdom to St. John's. Father Masakowski reinstated the now-famous parish picnic and renovated the interior of the church. He reorganized the church societies and had a grotto constructed to Our Lady of the Pines in the church park. In 1990, Father John was made Monsignor, much to the pride of his faithful parishioners. This year, they will celebrate his Golden anniversary of ordination. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the parish picnic at St. John's many times over the years of my tenure in Congress. Its parishioners are decent, hardworking people, many of whom I am proud to call friends. I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring the history of this proud and thriving parish to the attention of my colleagues. The history of the church is a testament to their dedication and perseverance. I congratulate Monsignor Masakowski and the congregation on this momentous milestone.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished educator from Northeastern Pennsylvania, Joe Moran. This month, Joe's colleagues, family, and students will gather to honor him as he retires. I am pleased to have been asked to participate in this tribute. Joe Moran grew up in Luzerne County and had a distinguished athletic career at the University of Scranton. After earning his degree, he went to work as an engineer for Martin Aircraft of Baltimore, Maryland. Not long afterwards, Joe became a teacher in New Jersey and in 1959, he returned to Wilkes-Barre to teach. Joe spent twenty-four years as a physics teacher and coach at Coughlin High School. During Joe's tenure as coach, Coughlin's football team went to seven city championships and one Wyoming Valley Conference championship. As a result, Joe was named coach of the year in 1960 and 1966. He also led the track and field team to several championships. From 1973 to 1978, he was the Athletic Director at Coughlin High School. He later coached the defensive line at Wilkes College, helping to garner three Mid-Atlantic Conference crowns. In 1982, Coughlin High School made Joe an Assistant Principal and he helped integrate computers into the academic program. A few years later, Joe became principal of the G.A.R. Memorial Junior High School, also in Wilkes-Barre. There, he was instrumental in establishing the state-of-the-art technology center. In 1998, he became principal of the High School. Joe's love of sports and long career has helped shape the nature of high school athletics in the Wyoming Valley. He cofounded the Scholastic Tennis conference and was Co-Commissioner of the Wyoming Valley Track and Field Conference for two decades. He organized the first junior high girls track meet in the state. He served on the State Committee for Scholastic Football, the Commission of the Wyoming Valley Football Conference, and the Eastern Football Conference. Joe has been a swimming official for more than twenty years and was executive director of the Wyoming Valley Track and Field Officials Association. During this time, he and his wife, Fran, have raised six children who have, in turn, produced six grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Joe Moran deserves our gratitude for the dedication he has shown our area youth for almost forty years. Not only is he an educator and administrator, but he is an inspiration to our young athletes. I am proud to join with his family, his friends, and the community in congratulating Joe on a job well done. I send him my very best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, few will remember what we say here but history will record forever what we do here. The vote of this House will redefine the constitutional power of impeachment and restructure the very nature of our government from three separate but equal branches to a more parliamentary form. I have listened intently to the able arguments made on both sides of the aisle. I know in my heart and in my mind that neither party possesses a claim on righteousness. So I am profoundly disturbed that so many Members on both sides of the aisle can be so certain of the validity of their positions. How is it that good men and women of conscience can come to such opposite conclusions on the same facts and circumstances? It appears the only common thread that would account for this extreme difference would be partisanship. I am not gifted or wise enough to discern which side possesses the superior wisdom to be right. However, it appears to me that the constitutional framers and our predecessors established the precedent to solve this dilemma. And that is, the power of impeachment should only be exercised when it has the benefit of broad bipartisan support. We worry about the rule of law, the example to our children, our Constitutional duty and other such high-sounding phrases, but few have cautioned us about the effect of our decision today on the American Constitution that posterity will inherit. Some may hate this President. Some may want him punished for sins or crimes. But truly those of us who have sworn to uphold the Constitution should pause at this moment to understand that the action we are about to take will profoundly affect the relationship of our three branches of government for all time to come. My only prayer is that may God at this eleventh hour give everyone of us the power and insight to understand the consequences of our momentous decision. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness because today we are considering whether to impeach a President. Under our Constitution, there is no more somber occasion, except perhaps declaring war. In more than 200 years, we have impeached only one President, and we have never convened a lame-duck session of the House for this purpose. Just over ten weeks ago, I was one of only five Members of this body to vote against pursuing any form of an impeachment inquiry. At that time, I also called for the Congress to firmly censure the President. I reached these decisions, in part, because I feared the slippery slope of partisan politics that has brought us here today. Careful analysis of the facts known at the time we voted to begin an inquiry led me to conclude none was needed then. Even assuming that the worst was true-- namely, that the President lied and delayed the discovery of truth--I concluded that no misdeed rose to the level of an impeachable offense, and that an inquiry would unnecessarily prolong this painful National drama. (Congressional Record, October 8, 1998, p. H10025) In reaching my conclusions, I looked to the Constitution. It states that the President may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Read in their entirety the debates of the Constitution's authors also firmly imply that the bar for impeachment is extremely high, and that Congress should use it to address only those Presidential actions that threaten the stability of our Democracy. Lying about shameful conduct in one's personal life does not meet the standard envisaged by the Constitution's Framers. In the weeks since we voted to begin an inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee has failed miserably in its mission to conduct a thoughtful and bipartisan investigation. Instead, it has developed a novel, watered-down standard of what constitutes impeachment. The committee has also neglected to interview material witnesses or subject them to the rigor of a cross examination. Furthermore, although we have learned that Miss Lewinsky told the grand jury that no one asked her to lie and no one ever promised her a job, the Committee has ignored such evidence. Of the four articles of impeachment approved on party-line votes, two are ill-defined and two are unsubstantiated. Not only has a majority of the Judiciary Committee ignored the will of the people as expressed in an election just six weeks ago, but it has also refused to support censuring the President, a more prudent course of action that would swiftly provide closure and allow us to register our displeasure with the President's behavior. Instead, they have argued that impeachment is the censure. We, however, should not make that mistake. In voting today for impeachment we are not voting to censure the President; we are, in fact, voting to remove the President from office. treat the president no better and no differently Although I may not agree with the Judiciary Committee's recommendations on the matters before us today, I can agree with them in at least one respect. Namely, we should treat the President the same as any citizen. I also feel, however, that we should treat someone no differently just because he serves as our President. During the Judiciary Committee's proceedings last week, a majority of veteran, well-respected, non-partisan prosecutors testified that if the President were not involved--that is, if an ordinary citizen were the subject of an inquiry into the same misconduct--no sincere thought would be given to pursuing a criminal prosecution. If others would not be prosecuted for such conduct let alone removed from their jobs, why should we single out President Clinton? To me, it makes little sense. The Constitution fortunately offers us a way to obtain justice in this matter without pursuing impeachment. It provides that a President can be tried in criminal and civil courts, after leaving office, for any misdeed committed during his term. The courts can, therefore, decide in the near future if President Clinton perjured himself. A court trial will also ensure that the President is treated as fairly as any other American. consequences of impeachment for these actions Proceeding with impeachment in this case will also cause significant damage to the Constitution. A great number of Constitutional scholars have concluded that an offense is not impeachable unless it corrupts the government. The President's actions, although shameful, certainly did not destroy the proper functioning of our government. In short, he had an improper relationship with a subordinate, he lied about that relationship in order to conceal it, and he delayed the disclosure of the truth. But, he did not subvert our government by committing treason, invading the civil rights of individuals, or accepting bribes. Second, lowering the bar for impeachment would forever erode the power of the Presidency and tip the delicate system of checks and balances in favor of Congress. The result would be a de facto parliamentary system whereby the party in power in Congress could impeach a President of another party if a sufficient number of members of the House and Senate simply disagreed with his policies or actions. Our Founding Fathers created a government with three separate, but equal branches. Because impeachment in this case would irreparably and severely alter this balance, we would be wise to heed the counsel of the Constitution's Framers and maintain a strong Presidency. Finally, if the House passes any article of impeachment, we must consider how much it will harm the Nation. Such an outcome will likely paralyze the legislative branch for months. It will also disrupt the workings of the Supreme Court because the Chief Justice will have to preside over the Senate trial. Moreover, it will divide the country and reverse the judgment of the people who twice elected Bill Clinton as their President. censure, the better option Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers intended us to use impeachment only when the Nation is seriously threatened by the Chief Executive. On an issue as important as impeachment, we should, therefore, not engage in partisan politics. We should be seeking bipartisan consensus and allowing Members to vote their conscience. From my perspective, there is a better course of action than what we are being offered here. Instead of only considering whether to impeach the President or to exonerate him, a more sensible course of action would find a middle ground that would avoid a polarized public, government gridlock, and a Senate stalemate. As I stated at the time of my vote on the impeachment inquiry, I believe that we should strongly censure President Clinton for his reprehensible and immoral conduct. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House has denied us a vote on such an alternative. Opponents of this option contend that censure is not a Constitutionally-sanctioned procedure for Congressional condemnation of Presidential misconduct. If, however, impeachment is the only alternative available to Congress to register its opinion on every occasion of Presidential wrongdoing, then the threshold for impeachment will fall too low. Although the Constitution remains silent on the issue of censure, Constitutional scholars generally agree that Congress can do what it wants as an alternative to impeachment, so long as we do not cross the lines that separate the three branches of government. In fact, by a margin of nearly four to one, the 18 Constitutional experts called as witnesses by both the Republicans and Democrats before the Judiciary Committee agreed in writing that the Constitution does not prohibit censure. Finally, the argument ignores the fact that Congress has been censuring Presidents for more than 150 years, including Presidents Jackson, Tyler, Polk, and Buchanan. conclusion Based upon any fair reading of the Constitution, nothing in this case justifies overturning an election and removing our President. Instead, it is time to put the turmoil of the last eleven months behind us. The President misled his family, his friends, his colleagues, and Congress. He also dishonored the office the American people entrusted to him. For this inappropriate and disreputable behavior, we need to admonish the President, but not punish the Nation. The American people should not have to endure a Senate trial about Presidential offenses that did not subvert the government. Mr. Speaker, we should vote today to end this impeachment charade. We need to move forward and address the Nation's real priorities. We should give the people what they want a Congress focused on governing the country and working with the President to address the pressing challenges of our time. We should also begin to forgive. Congressional censure will accomplish all of these goals. For these reasons and others, I will oppose these articles of impeachment, but support sensible efforts to censure the President.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Citizens' Voice newspaper of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which is celebrating its twentieth anniversary on October 9, 1998. Despite tremendous obstacles, the Citizens' Voice has survived and thrived as a daily newspaper in a competitive market. In the fall of 1978, 205 employees of the Wilkes-Barre Publishing Company who were on strike decided to create their own paper. That decision led to the publishing of the first edition of the Citizens' Voice. Since then, the paper has grown to a circulation of approximately 38,000. During that time, the Voice has received numerous awards from local and state professional organizations. The Voice's first ``home'' was a building scheduled for demolition by the Redevelopment Authority on North Main Street in Wilkes-Barre. In early 1979, the Voice moved to the mezzanine of the Hotel Sterling in the heart of downtown Wilkes-Barre. In June of 1984, the Voice moved to its present headquarters on North Washington Street in Wilkes-Barre. Mr. Speaker, not too many cities the size of Wilkes-Barre have two daily newspapers anymore, but I think the presence of both papers has lead to an improvement in the quality of coverage provided to area residents. I applaud the Citizens' Voice for its twenty years of excellence and wish the paper future success.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day to pay tribute to James J. Deice, the 1998 Person of the year of the Italian-American Association of Luzerne County. I am proud to have been asked to participate in the Association's annual Columbus Day Dinner on October 11. Jim played both football and track as a student at West Pittston High School. He majored in English at the University of Scranton and graduated with a B.A. in Education in 1969. He later obtained his Master's degree from West Chester University, Penn State University and University of Scranton. After graduating from college, Jim took a teaching job in Royersford, Pennsylvania but in 1972, he returned to Northeastern Pennsylvania to teach English at Pittston Area Senior High School. Jim also coached Pittston Area's track, football and wrestling teams. He coached the wrestling team to its first-ever District Title in 1996-97. For this achievement, he was honored by his fellow coaches as Coach of the Year. He retired from coaching in 1997. That same year, Jim received the Gerard M. Musto Teacher of the Year Award from the National Honor Society at Pittston Area. In additional to teaching and coaching, Jim has made his commitment to our community clear by his involvement in numerous activities outside of school. He is a member of the Knights of Columbus, UNICO, and the Serradifalco Society. He is Chairman of he Pittston City Parking Authority and is active with the Pittston Tomato Festival Committee, co-chairing the parade for that yearly event. For five years, Jim chaired the track-and-field events for he Special Olympics of Luzerne County. during the 10 years Jim has been a member of the Italian-American Association, he has served as President and chaired several communities. He is currently the Chairman of the Association's Board of Director. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring the many accomplishments of Jim Deice to the attention of my colleagues. Jim is a community leader and outstanding role model for the youths he helps to shape each day. I applaud the Italian-American Association for their choice of honoree this year and send my best wishes to Jim and his family as he accepts this prestigious honor.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to any impeachment inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Today, for only the third time in our nation's history, the House will consider whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry against the President. I take my sworn constitutional duty and responsibility in this matter very seriously. Over the last four weeks, I have reviewed the Starr report and other material submitted by his office. I have also listened to legal experts, constitutional scholars, and my constituents about the referral. I have further studied the origins and history of our Constitution's impeachment clause. After considerable deliberation, I have determined that there is no convincing reason to vote for an impeachment inquiry into the matters referred by the independent counsel based on the evidence that we have before us at this time. Clearly, President Clinton behaved badly. He was wrong to engage in an inappropriate relationship with a young woman. He was wring to mislead the American people in his public statements, and he was wrong to provide misleading answers in judicial proceedings. For that wrong behavior the President should be reprimanded, but he should not be removed from office. Our Constitution demands a higher standard for the Congress to undertake the extraordinary action of removing a duly-elected President. This Congress has not sufficiently considered what constitutes an impeachable offense. Before we irreparably damage our nation's delicate system of checks and balances among our three branches of government, it is imperative that we establish that standard in a fair, non-partisan matter. The resolution we are considering today is not about whether the man who holds the highest elected office in the country engaged in an improper relationship and then tried to conceal it. Rather, this resolution is about the standard under which the Congress has the right to overturn the will of the people who elected the President of the United States. impeachment definition Both the text of the Constitution and the comments of its authors place the bar for impeachment quite high, and mandate that Congress use the impeachment process to address only the gravest of wrongs. Specifically, Article II of the Constitution states that the President may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of ``treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Because this phrase is often truncated and used out of context, it is necessary to carefully examine the writings and debates of the Constitution's authors. Fortunately, evidence of the phrase's meaning and development is extensive. One individual who can provide especially helpful guidance about the meaning of the term is George Mason, the man who proposed the language adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Mr. Mason noted that ``Impeachment should be reserved for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors where the President's actions are great and dangerous offenses or attempts to subvert the Constitution and the most extensive injustice.'' Read in their entirety the writings of the Constitution's authors firmly imply that the bar for impeachment is extremely high, and that Congress should use it to address only those Presidential actions that threaten the stability of our democracy. Moreover, the debate over the Constitution indicates that the Founders clearly intended that ``other high crimes and misdemeanors'' had to be crimes and actions against the state on the same level of magnitude as treason and bribery. We can also look to precedent when seeking to understand the definition of impeachment and whether the actions of a President in his private life rise to the level of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee considered substantial evidence that Richard Nixon committed tax fraud during his presidency. Although the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that President Nixon had committed such fraud, the panel concluded by a bipartisan vote of 26 to 12 that personal misconduct is not an impeachable offense. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that other remedies exist for addressing Presidential wrongdoing, including civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. Finally, it is important to note that the Founders included impeachment as a constitutional remedy because they worried about Presidential tyranny and gross abuse of power. They did not intend impeachment or the threat of its use to serve as a device for denouncing the President's private actions. Instead, they left punishment for improper private Presidential conduct to public opinion, the political process, and judicial proceedings. I support the Framers' wise counsel on impeachment. The consideration of whether to overturn a decision of the electorate should only be undertaken in extreme situations. In short, Presidents ought not to be impeached for private conduct, however reprehensible. poor precedent Beyond failing to meet the standard of impeachment envisioned by our Founders and strengthened by past practice, an impeachment inquiry into the matters recently referred by the independent counsel would create dangerous and undesirable precedents for the country in at last three significant ways. First, if this politically-inspired effort ultimately succeeds, it will tip the delicate system of checks and balances in favor of Congress. The result would be a parliamentary system whereby the party in power in Congress could impeach a President and a Vice President of another party for virtually any reason. Our Founders created a government with three separate, but equal branches of government. We should remember this fact today and not upset the balance of power they so sensibly established. Second, as noted above, the House should vote to pursue an impeachment inquiry only if it has credible evidence of action constituting fundamental injuries to the governmental process. Assuming the facts presented by the independent counsel thus far to be true, the President's conduct does not rise to the level the Founders deemed impeachable because it was not ``a serious abuse of power or a serious abuse of official duties.'' Furthermore, Congress has in more than 200 years never removed a President from office even though several Presidents have committed far more serious abuses. One must consequently ask whether this is where we want to set the bar for impeaching this and future Presidents. From my perspective it is not. Finally, based on the facts of this referral, an impeachment inquiry would impose an extraordinary invasion of privacy. An impeachment inquiry on what is fundamentally a private matter will likely deter worthy contenders in both parties from running for political office-- particularly the presiency--because they fear protracted, government- sponsored investigations into their past, current, and possibly future actions. Moreover, it could also provoke a move to impeach future Presidents every time that Congress thinks they may have made false statements. the solution Like most Americans, I am personally disappointed with the President's acknowledged inappropriate personal behavior. Clearly, the President engaged in an improper relationship about which he did not want anyone to know. The President, as a result, was not forthcoming with the truth regarding this relationship, not only with the independent counsel and Congress, but also with his family and the American people. Ultimately, after months of personal turmoil the President admitted the affair, and suffered great humiliation and much public embarrassment, probably more than any other individual in our nation who has made similar mistakes. The President's conduct was wrong and worthy of rebuke. Even if such personal behavior is not impeachable, as representatives of the people we must tell the President that his actions are not acceptable. We should, therefore, immediately consider some sort of censure against the President. Censure is a serious act that will certainly damage his standing in the public and lower his rank in history. conclusion At the end of my prepared remarks, I will attach four excellent articles that further elaborate on the points I have made today. They include an analysis by noted constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein, thoughts by Robert F. Drinan and Wayne Owens who served as Democratic Members on the House Watergate panel, and a commentary by former Republican President Gerald R. Ford. The former President argues that instead of impeachment, the House should publicly censure the current President's behavior. I have also attached several recent statements about the Starr referral from some of the individuals integrally involved in Watergate all of whom conclude that this is vastly different form and less serious than Watergate. Mr. Speaker, from my perspective Congress must swiftly resolve the matters referred by the independent counsel. We need to admonish the President for his inappropriate personal behavior and quickly move forward and address the nation's real priorities. We also need to ensure that we rebuke the President, and not punish the nation. The American people should not have to suffer through what could be an unlimited Congressional inquiry into a tawdry, but hardly impeachable extramarital affair. This Congress should begin the process of healing the nation's wounds. We should also begin to forgive. For these reasons, I will oppose this impeachment inquiry. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1998] ``Impeachment? The Framers Wouldn't Buy It'' (By Cass Sunstein) We all now know that, under the Constitution, the president can be impeached for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' But what did the framers intend us to understand with these words? Evidence of the phrase's evolution is extensive--and it strongly suggests that, if we could solicit the views of the Constitution's authors, the current allegations against President Clinton would not be impeachable offenses. When the framers met in Philadelphia during the stifling summer of 1787, they were seeking not only to design a new form of government, but to outline the responsibilities of the president who would head the new nation. They shared a commitment to disciplining public officials through a system of checks and balances. But they disagreed about the precise extent of presidential power and, in particular, about how, if at all, the president might be removed from office. If we judge by James Madison's characteristically detailed accounts of the debates, this question troubled and divided the members of the Constitutional Convention. The initial draft of the Constitution took the form of resolutions presented before the 30-odd members on June 13. One read that the president could be impeached for ``malpractice, or neglect of duty,'' and, on July 20, this provision provoked extensive debate. The notes of Madison, who was representing Virginia, show that three distinct positions dominated the day's discussion. One extreme view, represented by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, was that ``the National Legislature should have the power to remove the Executive at pleasure.'' Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, Rufus King of Massachusetts and Gouvernor Morris of Pennsylvania opposed, with Pinckney arguing that the president ``ought not to be impeachable whilst in office.'' The third position, which ultimately carried the day, was that the president should be impeachable, but only for a narrow category of abuses of the public trust. It was George Mason of Virginia who took a lead role in promoting this more moderate course. He argued that it would be necessary to counter the risk that the president might obtain his office by corrupting his electors. ``Shall that man be above'' justice, he asked, ``who can commit the most extensive injustice?'' The possibility of the new president becoming a near-monarch led the key votes--above all, Morris--to agree that impeachment might be permitted for (in Morris's words) ``corruption & some few other offences.'' Madison concurred, and Edmund Randolph of Virginia captured the emerging consensus, favoring impeachment on the grounds that the executive ``will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respect the public money, will be in his hands.'' The clear trend of the discussion was toward allowing a narrow impeachment power by which the president could be removed only for gross abuses of public authority. To Pinckney's continued protest that the separation of powers should be paramount, Morris argued that ``no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay without being able to guard against it by displacing him.'' At the same time, Morris insisted, ``we should take care to provide some mode that will not make him dependent on the Legislature.'' Thus, led by Morris, the framers moved toward a position that would maintain the separation between president and Congress, but permit the president to be removed in extreme situations. A fresh draft of the Constitution's impeachment clause, which emerged two weeks later on Aug. 6, permitted the president to be impeached, but only for treason, bribery and corruption (exemplified by the president's securing his office by unlawful means). With little additional debate, this provision was narrowed on Sept. 4 to ``treason and bribery.'' But a short time later, the delegates took up the impeachment clause anew. Mason complained that the provision was too narrow, that ``maladministration'' should be added, so as to include ``attempts to subvert the Constitution'' that would not count as treason or bribery. But Madison, the convention's most careful lawyer, insisted that the term ``maladministration'' was ``so vague'' that it would ``be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,'' which is exactly what the framers were attempting to avoid. Hence, Mason withdrew ``maladministration'' and added the new terms ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the State''--later unanimously changed to, according to Madison, ``against the United States'' to ``remove ambiguity.'' The phrase itself was taken from English law, where it referred to a category of distinctly political offenses against the state. There is a further wrinkle in the clause's history. On Sept. 10, the entire Constitution was referred to the Committee on Style and Arrangement. When that committee's version appeared two days later, the words ``against the United States'' had been dropped, probably on the theory that they were redundant, although we have no direct evidence. It would be astonishing if this change were intended to have a substantive effect, for the committee had no authority to change the meaning of any provision, let alone the impeachment clause on which the framers had converged. The Constitution as a whole, including the impeachment provision, was signed by the delegates and offered to the nation on Sept. 17. These debates support a narrow understanding of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' founded on the central notions of bribery and treason. The early history tends in the same direction. The Virginia and Delaware constitutions, providing a background for the founders' work, generally allowed impeachment for acts ``by which the safety of the State may be endangered.'' And consider the words of the highly respected (and later Supreme Court Justice) James Iredell, speaking in the North Carolina ratifying convention: ``I suppose the only instances, in which the President would be liable to impeachment, would be where he had received a bribe, or had acted from some corrupt motive or other.'' By way of explanation, Iredell referred to a situation in which ``the President has received a bribe . . . from a foreign power, and, under the influence of that bribe, had address enough with the Senate, by artifices and misrepresentations, to seduce their consent to a pernicious treaty.'' James Wilson, a convention delegate from Pennsylvania, wrote similarly in his 1791 ``Lectures on Law'': ``In the United States and in Pennsylvania, impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.'' Another early commentator went so far as to say that ``the legitimate causes of impeachment . . . can have reference only to public character, and official duty. . . . In general, those offenses, which may be committed equally by a private person, as a public officer, are not the subjects of impeachment.'' This history casts new light on the famous 1970 statement of Gerald Ford, then a representative from Michigan, that a high crime and misdemeanor ``is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be.'' In a practical sense, of course, Ford was right; no court would review a decision to impeach. But in a constitutional sense, he was quite wrong; the framers were careful to circumscribe the power of the House of Representatives by sharply limiting the category of legitimately impeachable offenses. The Constitution is not always read to mean what the founders intended it to mean, and Madison's notes hardly answer every question. But under any reasonable theory of constitutional interpretation, the current allegations against Clinton fall far short of the permissible grounds for removing a president from office. Of course, perjury and obstruction of justice could be impeachable offenses if they involved, for example, lies about unlawful manipulation of elections. It might even be possible to count as impeachable ``corruption'' the extraction of sexual favors in return for public benefits of some kind. But nothing of this kind has been alleged thus far. A decision to impeach President Clinton would not and should not be subject to judicial review. But for those who care about the Constitution's words, and the judgment of its authors, there is a good argument that it would nonetheless be unconstitutional.--Cass Sunstein, who teaches at the University of Chicago School of Law, is the author of ``Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict'' (Oxford University Press).

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the President John F. Kennedy Council 372 of the Knights of Columbus in Pittston, Pennsylvania on the momentous occasion of their 100th anniversary. I am pleased and proud to have been asked to participate in this historic event. The early years of the Council are not well documented, but it is known that the Council made its home for many years on William Street in Pittston. Activities of the Council were curtailed during World War II due to the low membership as the members went off to war. Around 1947, the Council became more active under the leadership of the newly- elected Grand Knight, John Moran. The Home Association and Fourth Degree Assembly became active in 1948 and membership in the Council expanded to 400. When membership reached 600 in 1955, the members purchased a building, giving the Council its first real home. The Council's 65th anniversary was noted with a parade; the following year, the Council's name was changed to honor the recently-assassinated John F. Kennedy. An oil portrait of Council's new namesake still hangs on the main floor of the Council's building. The Knights of Columbus in Pittston have been integral in the social and civic life in the area through the years. It maintains a choir and honor guard and sponsors a Little League baseball team and many other youth-oriented activities. By 1988, official membership in the Council reached 844. Mr. Speaker, I send my very best wishes to the dedicated community members who donate their time and energy to the Knights of Columbus activities in the Pittston area. Northeastern Pennsylvania is blessed with a commitment to community service and the long history of the Knights of Columbus. Council 372 is a great example of that proud tradition and heritage.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jon H. Larson, a distinguished educator who is joining our community in Northeastern Pennsylvania. On October 10, 1998, Dr. Larson will be inaugurated as the fifth president of the Luzerne County Community College, located in my hometown of Nanticoke. Dr. Larson was most recently Vice-President for Administration and Dean of Institutional Services of the Frederick Community College in Frederick, Maryland. During his tenure at Frederick, he was also a research associate at the University of Maryland. Prior to that experience, Dr. Larson served in several administrative and teaching positions at Berkshire Community College in Massachusetts. Dr. Larson had numerous successes in Maryland, having served as the founding co-chair of the Maryland Community College Technology Council and the founding chair of the Maryland Community College Facilities Planners Council. He chaired a campaign that quadrupled capital funding for 18 colleges and was instrumental in the resource development and grant funding aspects of a $34 million capital improvements program. Always active in the community, Dr. Larson served in leadership capacity of the Kiwanis, Norwich University Club, and the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce. He also served as community representative for the Bio Whittaker Animal Care and Use Committee, chair of the Frederick County CETA Planning Council, and chair of the Lee, Massachusetts Planning Board. Dr. Larson has been a member of the Society for College and University Planning, the AACC National Council for Research and Planning, and several other professional organizations. Since moving to Northeastern Pennsylvania, Dr. Larson has continued his community involvement by joining the Kirby Center Board of Directors and co- chairing the education committee of the United Way of Wyoming Valley. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join with the community in welcoming Dr. Larson and his wife, Judy, to Northeastern Pennsylvania. Since his recent arrival, Dr. Larson has already provided a clear vision for the mission of the Luzerne County Community College in the new millennium.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Member of Congress that shares a common border with the 10th district in northeastern Pennsylvania. The name ``Joe McDade'' is famous. As a matter of fact, he came to this Congress as the immediate successor to the Honorable William Scranton, who later went on to become an outstanding Governor of Pennsylvania and the United States representative to the United Nations. Joe McDade followed in his tradition, and for 36 years has been as an individual more responsible for the economic recovery of his district and northeastern Pennsylvania than any other Member. He also, in the course of his service to his constituents, raised bipartisanship to a new level. An immediate predecessor of mine was the honorable Daniel Flood, and Joe came as a junior member to Congressman Flood, but together worked for the benefits of northeastern Pennsylvania, to such an extent that in 1972 when Flood Agnes struck northeastern Pennsylvania's Wyoming Valley, it was not one Congressman that represented the 11th district, Dan Flood, that worked alone; it was two Congressmen. The people of my district will always be in debt to the honorable Joe McDade. Mr. Speaker, I may say for my colleagues, those of them who have not had the honor and privilege of visiting Joe's district of northeastern Pennsylvania, take an opportunity and also take a lesson. Anywhere you travel in the 10th congressional district of Pennsylvania and you mention the name Joe McDade, whether it be Republican, Democrat or Independent, there is only high respect to the individual as a person and for his public service. They have memorialized that throughout that district with McDade Park, the McDade Highway, and on and on. Mr. Speaker, he will live for centuries to come because of his good efforts. Mr. Speaker, we are working together, I hope, to see that a further tribute be paid to our great friend and our great Congressman and an outstanding Member of this House, and my good friend, Joe McDade.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to four outstanding constituents of mine who have made a real contribution to fighting drugs in Northeastern Pennsylvania: Gene Fischi, Al Ottensman, Paul O'Malia, and David Stefanoski. These four men are the founders of an anti-drug initiative called the ``Straight-;Up'' program that involves prisoners at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility travelling to area high schools and colleges to tell students about life in prison and how drugs ruined their lives and led to their incarceration. The detailed, first-person stories conveyed by these prisoners can convey a powerful message to teenagers about the dangers of drug abuse. Given rising concern in Northeastern Pennsylvania and throughout the nation about the perils of teenage drug abuse, this sort of innovative program is an eminently worthy endeavor. The ``Straight-Up'' program could not have survived since April of 1996 were it not for the dedicated work of Luzerne County Correctional Facility Warden Gene Fischi, and Sergeant David Stefanoski, Lieutenant Al Ottensman, and Lieutenant Paul O'Malia of the Luzerne County Correctional Facility. Their efforts have already affected over 21,000 Luzerne County youth. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to bring their accomplishment to the attention of my colleagues and I wish them and the ``Straight-Up'' program future success.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, Mr. Clifford Melberger of my District in Pennsylvania. Cliff has been named ``Community Leader of the Year'' by the Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation. I am pleased to have been asked to participate in honoring him. Deborah D. Hannon, Chairperson of the Foundation's Board of Directors, describes this prestigious award as ``an award that is given throughout each chapter area to a person who epitomizes the word `leader` in both his personal and professional life.'' Cliff Melberger is certainly a fine example of this criteria. He is the founder and CEO of Diversified Information Technologies, Inc., a national information management and document imaging company. Cliff has been an innovator in the use of computer systems to service the information management industry. He received two research grants from Pennsylvania's Ben Franklin Partnership to develop electronic vaulting, which is the transmission of computerized media via satellite or Telecommunications. For the last 16 years, Clifford Melberger has defined Diversifed's migration from a traditional records storage and retrieval company to a state-of-the-art information management company, providing Fortune 500 companies with access to their corporate records via multiple media platforms. Mr. Speaker, Cliff Melberger began his career in banking after receiving his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Bucknell University. He served as president of the University's Alumni Association. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the JPM Corporation, the Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Board of Trustees of Wilkes University. He is an Elder in his church. He and his wife Ruth are parents of two grown children and have two grandchildren. It is with great pleasure that I join with the Arthritis Foundation in honoring this distinguished businessman and community leader, Mr. Clifford Melberger. I send him and his family my sincere congratulations on this honor and best wishes for continued success and prosperity.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated community servant in Northeastern Pennsylvania, Michael P. Barski. Michael, who is eighty-seven years old, recently ended his tenth four-year term as Tax Collector of Conyngham Townships. Michael Barski worked in the coal mines until he joined the U.S. Marines at the start of World War II. He returned to the mines following a tour of duty in Europe. Michael was first elected Tax Collector in 1957 and shortly thereafter began rising at dawn to do the bookeeping, a habit he would keep for forty years. Rather than publishing office hours. Michael make himself available to all members of the community at all hours. Mr. Speaker, Michael is also a devoted baseball fan and an ardent follower of the New York Yankees. He was a local umpire from 1949 until just a few years ago. He also was an active member of the St. Mary's Church Choir and a Quartermaster of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for twenty-five years. Michael is the son of the late Adam and Catherine Barski and is eldest of eleven children. He and his wife, the former Catherine Novelli, will celebrate their 62nd Wedding Anniversary on September 29, 1998. They have two grown children and one granddaughter named Lydia. Their son Michael is an executive with a financial firm and their daughter Barbara works with the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. I am extremely proud to bring this extraordinary American's life to the attention of my colleagues. I join with his family, his many friends, and the community in wishing him a wonderful, well-deserved retirement from public service and my very best wishes for continued good health and happiness

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jack Gulbin, president of Schott Glass Technologies Inc. He is retiring in October after 30 years with Schott. A ceremony in his honor is being held on August 13, and I am proud to have been asked to participate in this event. Born in 1935 in northeastern Pennsylvania's Forest City, John George Gulbin graduated Magna Cum Laude in 1961 from the University of Scranton with a degree in accounting. After graduation, Jack spent the next 7 years working for Arthur Anderson & Company, a public accounting firm, in New York City, and Stanley Works, a hardware and tool manufacturer, in New Britain, Connecticut. In 1968, Jack was hired as the first controller of a fledging company then named Schott Optical Glass Inc. As his hard work was recognized by Schott, Gulbin began to climb the corporate ladder. In 1970, he was appointed Schott's Treasurer and 5 years later, he was promoted to Vice President of Finance. In 1989, Jack became Schott's Executive Vice President and on October 1, 1991, he was named President of Schott Glass Technologies Inc. During Jack's tenure with Schott, the company has moved to the cutting edge of glass technology. One of Schott's newest ventures is to build a processing plant in Duryea, Pennsylvania that will produce super-thin glass using ``down draw'' technology, which allows for thinner glass to be created that requires less polishing. This glass will be used in displays for hand-held electronics for the U.S. Department of Defense ground forces and in avionics displays for military jets. Other uses include displays for laptop computers, work stations, and commercial jet avionics. Schott's new plant will be the first facility of its kind in the United States. In addition to being important for the national security, the expansion is expected to create an additional 100 jobs in Northeastern Pennsylvania, adding to Schott's status as one of the region's largest employers. Mr. Speaker, Jack Gulbin is an able businessman and a proven leader. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to bring Jack's many accomplishments to the attention of my colleagues. I thank Jack for all he has done for his native northeastern Pennsylvania and I wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my two colleagues, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade and Mr. Murtha, for coming before the Congress in a timely fashion and raising a question that is very important. I want to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not a political issue. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. I occupy the District immediately south of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). Members cannot imagine what this government and those prosecutors did to that Member of Congress. I do not know of any other Member of Congress who could have withstood the leaks and the poisonous spirit in which the public persecution, not prosecution, occurred. Yes, it was lucky that Joe McDade had $1 million, or could raise $1 million, but how many more Americans could raise that amount? That is the substantive question, here. On the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), does anyone in their right mind not understand that at some point, and certainly next year, this Congress is going to have to decide what conduct we are going to allow prosecutors or special counsels to engage in? How far afield can they go from their assignment? What can they do? I am sort of embarrassed to bring up another issue, but we had a prosecution in Pennsylvania, and the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe McDade and Mr. Jack Murtha, will remember this. There was a treasurer of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where a prosecutor was prosecuting the improper award of a contract and brought a criminal action. The witnesses in that case testified against the contractor and the contractor was convicted of bribery. Within one month, the prosecutors in that case had those very same witnesses change their story 180 degrees to now testify against the treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and threatened those witnesses with prosecution of their wives and their children. It is a famous story across this country. It was witnessed on television. The only way that treasurer could protect the future of his family and maintain his pension was to commit suicide before sentencing, and he did. Mr. Chairman, if that is not extreme, extraordinary prosecutorial activity, I do not know what is. I have witnessed it in the case of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). I am witnessing it with this special counsel. There are statistics now available that, in the White House alone, the individuals working there have had to spend more than $12 million in hiring lawyers to appear in depositions and before grand juries who are not in any way substantively involved. We are going on and on. What this ends up doing, and the American people know this, is destroying respect for the American judicial system, all with the idea that every now and then some prosecutor who wears a pearl handled 45 revolver can find somebody who has a grudge against an elected official, Republican or Democrat, who can make a point to bring a charge, and substantiate that charge by just marginal testimony, sufficient to get an indictment, but not sufficient to convict. But you can take that public official down the road to ruination, that family down the road to ruination, our system down the road to ruination. Why? Why do we sit here? Why are we so innocent? Why have we not recognized that this has been happening over and over and over again? Why are we asking for the McDade-Murtha language? It was an understanding in the bar and in the prosecutorial field and in the defense field that there were certain standards of ethics and honor, certain things you did not do, an unwritten code. Well, the prosecutors in the United States today, whether they be special counsels or regular prosecutors, have shown us that they are going to push it to the end of the envelope and beyond. They are going to write their own definition of what standards are. So it is incumbent upon this House, the people's House, to determine that if you are going to push it to the edge of the envelope and you are going to destroy lives and you are going to prosecute people unreasonably at high expense and at a detriment to both, the family and this democracy, then this public House should take action. We are saying we want to codify the code of standards. We want to say what they have to do and what they do not have to do, and we want to make them subject to a review board. Why should not public officials and all Americans know that when they get taken by their government for hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of prosecutors, thousands of FBI agents, that they have a right not to be ruined. That is what the McDade-Murtha language and the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Michigan is going to accomplish. I urge my colleagues to vote for justice.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Barbara L. Greenberg of Northeastern Pennsylvania. This month, Barbara Greenberg will be installed as the National President of the Jewish War Veterans Auxiliary. Barbara was born in New York City and lived there until the end of World War II when she moved with her family to Northeastern Pennsylvania, where she has resided ever since. Barbara graduated from Rider College with a degree in Medical Technology. After several years as a homemaker, Barbara began a career in the insurance industry in 1972, which she still pursues to this date. From a very early age, Barbara learned love of country and a hatred of bigotry from her beloved and patriotic father. As a child, she helped her father in his anti-air raid duties during World War II. Barbara volunteers at the Veterans Medical Center and participates in all Veterans and Memorial Day parades. Barbara is also active in her Temple, holding many leadership positions over the years. She has been president of the Women's Service Club at the Jewish Community Center and was recently named to the Executive Committee and the board of the Jewish Home of Northeastern Pennsylvania. Barbara first became a member of the Jewish War Veterans Auxiliary after her marriage to her husband, Sam, who would later serve as National Commander of the Jewish War Veterans. Her love for the organization grew and assumed leadership roles in the national organization with great distinction, serving on the A-Board, Chair of the Membership Committee, National A-Wish, and Aid to Israel just to name a few. During this activity, she somehow managed to raise three children who have produced eight grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to bring Barbara Greenberg's accomplishments to the attention of my colleagues. I join with the Jewish War Veterans Auxiliary in thanking Barbara for her past and future efforts.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I could not resist this argument today because as I listened to it, and I have some good friends that are making it, all I could think of was back in about 1480, some 518 years ago, I suspect that in the country of Spain there was the leadership of Spain arguing with a rather novice voyager known as Christopher Columbus, arguing the proposition of whether the world was flat or round. Luckily, Mr. Columbus won that argument, both in the persuasion of being financed for his voyage and establishing the proposition by virtue of his voyage. Then I wonder, in the early 19th century, in 1830 and 1840 in this country when public education was a hot issue and it was argued whether it was the role of government to guarantee primary or secondary education to all the students of this country, the proposition by the wealthy, the proposition by many of the well-intended, was that is not a role of government, and we should not divert resources of the government for the purposes of private education. I suspect that if we checked the Congressional Record of about 1943 or 1944, there was very strong argument on that very same proposition when the GI Bill of Rights and the payment for college education for the returning veterans was also argued in this great Chamber. I would argue and offer as evidence a proposition to my friends: If we would look back to 1946 in the City of Philadelphia and the great invention of the first computer, the first computer was financed by the United States Government in its entirety. It was developed at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 1946, and Philadelphia is not Silicon Valley. As a matter of fact, Pennsylvania is not the computer center of the world. But, from some of the reports that I have read, more than 23 percent of the employees now working in the United States would not have their jobs if it had not have been for the invention of the computer. Now, I have heard my friends argue on the ATP question that it is subsidization and corporate welfare. Very nicely charged, emotional words. And then I have heard the comment that there is all that venture capital out there. Well, I suggest, one, if you really believe there is all that venture capital out there, go back and read some of the record and hearings of the Subcommittee on Economic Development of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services four, five and six years ago, where the venture capitalists of this country were called in, the technology people of this country were called in, and they readily admitted that taking an idea or a technology from bench model to commercialization was the greatest impacting device in America of how to accomplish this. Yes, when you have a proven technology that is ready to be commercialized tomorrow, you can go to Wall Street or you can go to the stock market and raise your venture capital. But I venture to say if you have a brilliant idea and it is not yet commercialized, it is extremely difficult and extremely frustrating in this country to raise the funds to develop that to a commercial state. What we are talking about here is not, as one of the gentleman said, why do we need corporate welfare in the strongest economy in the world? Because the investments we are arguing for today are not for tomorrow, but for 5, 10, and 15 years from now, if we want to maintain our superiority in technology indeed in the world. And what are we arguing about for more than an hour? Twenty cents per man, woman and child in this country. That is what the ATP system allows. We have heard comments, what does EDA create, the Economic Development Administration? Well, I can tell you, in my district I can account for at least 3,000 to 5,000 jobs through the Economic Development Administration, and many of those are grants to private small companies that would never have been able to become a competitor in their industry or field without some basic support from the United States Government. Is it sinful for the government to encourage inventive people, entrepreneurs, to take new technologies that create new unimagined wealth and support that in some little way? I argue not. I think the invention of the computer proves my adversary is wrong.

Mr. KANJORSKI

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that provisions of this legislation are understood and future lawsuits are prevented, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my distinguished colleague from Iowa. Is it the gentleman's understanding that the definition of a single common bond credit union does not preclude a credit union from having subgroups in its field of membership as long as the subgroups share the same common bond of association or occupation?

Mr. KANJORSKI. The bill includes language grandfathering persons and groups which were members of a credit union or eligible for membership in a credit union prior to the Supreme Court decision. Is it my understanding that these grandfather provisions apply to community credit unions as well as to multi-group and single group credit unions?

Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the gentleman. I have a colloquy I would like to engage in with my colleague from New York. It is my understanding that if a business sells off or spins off an operating unit or subsidiary, both current and future employees of the operating unit or subsidiary remain eligible for membership in a credit union, is that correct?

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank all of my colleagues and most especially the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). It is very seldom in this House that through the participation in the process of legislation, one forms a friendship and a common bond and not unlike a friendship I developed with a colleague many years ago in first coming to this House, I have found the beginning of that type of friendship with the gentleman from Ohio. I cherish it, I cherish the process and the experience we have had. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). With all these individuals, and many more, it was their work product that brought this legislation forth today. It would be remiss of me also not to make mention of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate. They took our text basically as their markup vehicle, worked from it and kept 75 percent of it, and the portions they added were good portions except for the two minor parts that the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) identified, and we will work with him in the future to correct them. Finally, Madam Speaker, the people who really should be thanked the most are the 70 million members of the credit movement across this country. Truly in a very cooperative effort they came together, contacted their representatives in this body and the Senate, and prevailed upon them to pass this enlightening legislation. I would say it was a victory of David over Goliath. Indeed it proves that a cooperative effort in America can win, and I would like to apologize to Abraham Lincoln, but I would like to say that today in the spirit of credit unions, it is of the people, by the people and for the people, that they, through this legislation, shall not perish from the earth. Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite consideration of this important legislation, it is being considered today under suspension of the rules, which limits total debate time to 20 minutes on each side of the aisle. As a result, it is not possible to address all of the issues we would like to address if we had additional time. I have already expressed my deep appreciation and thanks to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) who had the courage to join me in sponsoring this legislation when many of our colleagues thought we were titling against windmills. I have also expressed my appreciation to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, (Mr. Leach) who was at all times fair, courteous and supportive. I also want to thank the ranking Democratic Member (Mr. LaFalce), the Chairwoman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee (Mrs. Roukema), the ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee (Mr. Vento), and all of their staffs, who worked long and hard to help produce the bipartisan legislation we are considering today. All of their leadership is greatly appreciated. Also making a major contribution today's bill is Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Rick Carnell who helped perfect the title of the bill strengthening capital requirements for credit unions, the credit union share insurance fund, and the authority of the National Credit Union Administration to take prompt corrective action against troubled credit unions. National Credit Union Administration Chairman Norm D'Amours, and the members of the board, also provided their unwavering support for our legislation. The members of the other body, particularly the chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Banking Committee, must also be commended for acting so promptly on the House-passed bill, and for making only a few changes in it. And last, and certainly not least, I want to thank the millions of Americans across our national who took the time to explain to their Congressmen and Senators how important their credit union was to them. It is their hard work that made this victory possible. It is their hard work that demonstrates what being a member of a voluntary, not-for-profit, cooperative means. It is their hard work that demonstrates the strength of the cooperative movement. Mr. Speaker, the court decision we overturn today threatened financial accounts held by tens of millions of average American working families. It also jeopardized the safety and soundness of thousands of credit unions and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. In my home state of Pennsylvania alone the safety and soundness of 367 credit unions serving nearly two million members and their family were endangered by the court decision. In addition, if allowed to stand the court decision would have discriminated against the employees of small businesses who would have been effectively denied the right to choose a credit union for their financial services. Yet employees of small businesses are among the persons of small means most likely to benefit from credit union membership. Mr. Speaker, as the co-author of the Credit Union Membership Access Act, there are a number of technical provisions contained in it which need elaboration, particularly since there will be no formal conference report on the bill. One amendment added by the other body provides a specific retroactive exception from the multiple common bond requirements for a specific voluntary merger that was in progress when the court decision took effect. I want to make it clear that in granting this specific retroactive exception from the multiple common bond requirements we are not in any way diminishing the existing authority of the National Credit Union authority under section 205 of the Federal Credit Union Act to grant or withhold approval for voluntary mergers of credit unions. All of the federal banking regulators, including the National Credit Union Administration, have broad authority to approve and disapprove mergers of institutions under their jurisdiction, and this legislation is not intended to obstruct that authority in any way. Another important provision in this bill explicitly authorizes multiple group credit unions to include underserved areas in their field of membership. This is a provision which incorporates the principles of legislation originally introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). Providing service to underserved areas, which are defined in the bill and by NCUA regulations, helps all credit unions fulfill their mandate to serve persons of small means. It is integral to the spirit of the credit union movement. By including explicit language authorizing multiple group credit unions to include underserved areas in their field of membership, we are not in any way restricting the ability of the National Credit Union Administration to allow community and single group credit unions to include underserved areas in their fields of membership. Precluding community credit unions from serving underserved areas would be contrary to their reason for existence. Similarly, precluding single group credit unions from serving underserved areas makes no sense and would only add paperwork and regulatory burden for both credit unions and the NCUA since virtually any single group credit union can apply to add an additional group to its field of membership, thus becoming a multiple group credit union. Single group credit unions are a subset of multiple group credit unions and it was never intended, and would make no sense, for multiple group credit unions to have this authority, and for single group credit unions not to have similar authority. In the area of member business loans, the Senate amendments also provide an important exception to the limitation on member business loans for credit unions that are chartered for the purpose of, or have a history of, primarily making member business loans to their members as determined by the National Credit Union Administration. Under the bill the NCUA has broad authority to determine whether a credit union is chartered for the purpose of, or has a history of primarily making, member business loans to its members. This broad authority is important because member business loans need not be the largest category of loans in order for a credit union to qualify for this exception. Member business lending merely needs to constitute a significant portion of the portfolio or a significant number of loans in order for the NCUA to determine that a credit union is eligible for this exception. Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin has confirmed to us that member business loans by credit unions are not a safety and soundness problem. Quite to the contrary, member business loans are an important authority for community credit unions, and all credit unions, as they attempt to meet all of the credit needs of their members and their communities. More competition in this area, where many persons of small means have difficulty obtaining credit, must be encouraged by the Congress and the National Credit Union Administration. Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are two changes made by the Senate amendment which I hope we will be able to revisit at some point in the future. By a relatively narrow margin the other body voted to delete from bill provisions strengthening the obligation of credit unions to meet the financial services needs of persons of modest means. This deletion was unfortunate because this provision in the House bill helped to keep credit unions focused on their primary purpose. Similarly, I was extremely disappointed by the deletion of the provisions drafted by Chairman Leach designed to prevent insider self- dealing when a credit union converts to a mutual savings bank and from a mutual savings bank to a stock institution. This same amendment also greatly weakened the safeguards that exist in current law to prevent quickie conversions without approval by a reasonable, and informed, proportion of the membership. These changes open the door to the kind of fraud and abuse that we saw all too often during the savings and loan debacle. I hope that federal and state banking regulators will use their oversight authority over any proposed conversions to ensure that consumers are not defrauded and insiders are not enriched. I also look forward to working with the Chairman and ranking Democratic member to correct these provisions in future legislation.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.