Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, over the last couple hours we are told about slave labor, child labor, human rights abuses, forced abortion in China. So one could ask, well, why are we here giving permanent trade status to China? What is this issue all about? My colleagues, the issue is all about money. The issue tonight is money, corporate profits for our industry and corporate boards. That is what it is all about. Now, we have heard from the proponents that, gosh, we cannot isolate China, we cannot refuse to trade with them, we should not be protectionist. And it is all nonsense. Because everyone talking on the floor, be they for or against this resolution, know that we are going to continue, like today, trading with China. So what is the big deal? The big deal is do we give China tomorrow permanent trading status with our country? Do we throw open the doors to promises of hundreds of thousands of new jobs? Or should we, like we have for almost the past 20 years, review this country and their abuses on an annual basis and then on this floor make a decision? That is the question. It is not protectionism. It is whether or not Congress, the elected officials, will continue to review this. I was told about the hundreds of thousands of jobs when NAFTA was passed, the trading agreement with Mexico. My colleagues, I come from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A short time ago, Master Lock, little bicycle locks and big locks, small locks, they announced that they were going to close the plant, lay off 400 workers in the Milwaukee area, and move that to Mexico where the average wage we are told is about 50 cents an hour. We cannot compete with that. Well, that is not going to happen in China. Baloney. The average wage in China is 13 cents. Master Lock should have waited for this and then ran to China. Well, but we are going to have trade and they are going to buy American goods. The per capita income in China is about $750 a year, $750 a year. How many Jeep Cherokees can the Chinese buy from us? How many refrigerators? How many computers? My colleagues, the issue here is money, money, money. We were told when we had a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means that, under this agreement, investment in China is going to become more secure and more profitable. And that sent up a red flag for this fellow because that means American capital is going to go over there in droves and instead of shipping products, they are going to be made there; and we are going to be shipping machine tools and production equipment, only to have the widgets and the tires and the auto parts come back here displacing American workers. All we are asking today is let us review this and see if China is worthy of permanent. Let us look at it year to year. Congress comes back every year like the swallows to Capistrano.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I remember the life of Angeline M. McKelvie, who on April 20, 2000, died of a heart attack at the age of 62. Angeline was a dedicated public servant and lifelong resident of Cudahy, WI. Angeline, mother of four, was not content to be an observer when it came to her children's education. She became an active participant by running for the Cudahy School Board which served as the foundation for her political career. She set an example in the relationships she formed with area residents and became known as someone who cared about people. It was here school board experience that enabled her to move into the broader circle of politics. Angeline believed that a female perspective was needed on the all-male common council. After a few setbacks at the polls, in 1990 she became the first woman to serve on the Cudahy Common Council, paving the way for other women to become involved. While in office, she worked diligently to win the trust of her constituents. Even though her struggles with diabetes eventually led to the amputation of both legs, Angeline continued to work hard for the people in her beloved city, Cudahy. When it was time for a vote to be cast, Angeline knew what the people in her district wanted. Along with her desire to help people, she had a gift for listening. It was her determination and commitment to the people of Cudahy that enabled her to remain in office for 10 years. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, I ask that you join me in paying tribute to the life and work of Angeline McKelvie.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of my colleagues who have taken the floor in support of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. Every year more than 4,400 American women die of cervical cancer. Breast cancer, the leading cause of death among women between 40 and 45, kills more than 46,000 women a year. This year it is estimated that in Wisconsin alone over 800 women will die of breast or cervical cancer. In many cases, early detection and treatment would have prevented these deaths. Nine years ago, Congress enacted the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990, authorizing the Centers for Disease Control to offer a breast and cervical cancer- screening program for low-income, uninsured, or underinsured women. Unfortunately, the screening program lacks a critical aspect: treatment services for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Under current law, cancer therapy for Medicaid-eligible women is provided through an ad hoc patchwork of providers, volunteers, and local programs and often results in unpredictable, delayed, or incomplete treatment. Women are often forced to rely on charity care, donated services by physicians, or funds from bake sales and quilting bees. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act would solve this problem by allowing States to establish an optional State Medicaid benefit for the treatment of low-income women diagnosed under the 1990 law. I am pleased to see that the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act is supported by a bipartisan majority of the House. I salute the efforts of the advocacy groups, including the Wisconsin Breast Cancer Coalition to make this day possible.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 13, 2000, the largest one- day food drive in the country will take place. Letter carriers from across the country will be collecting nonperishable food items from their customers and the food will then be taken to local food pantries for distribution. In Milwaukee, the Hunger Task Force feeds approximately 35,000 individuals each month through a network of more than 80 food pantries. Sponsors of this worthwhile project are the National Association of Letter Carriers, in conjunction with the United States Postal Service, the AFL-CIO, United Way of Greater Milwaukee and Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to ask that my colleagues lend their support to the letter carriers' food drives in their hometowns and districts. To my fellow residents in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties, in order to meet the high demand for food over the summer, I ask that you consider buying a few extra canned goods and nonperishable items while doing the weekly grocery shopping. Let's make this year's food drive better than ever. Our food pantries are counting on drives like this to help keep their shelves filled. Let's all try to do our part to stamp out hunger.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I honor Dr. William Larkin, who is retiring as superintendent of the Greenfield, Wisconsin School District after 40 years as an educator. Dr. Larkin began his career as a classroom teacher. Through his hard work, and genuine concern for his students, he became an assistant principal, then junior high school principal, and high school principal. He spent 10 years as assistant superintendent for Milwaukee Public Schools, before becoming superintendent of the Monona Grove School District, and finally superintendent of the Greenfield School District, where he has served for the last 7 years. But Bill's commitment to education was not confined to the classroom or the superintendent's office. Besides working as an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Dr. Larkin has contributed his considerable talents to the North American International Baccalaureate Board of Directors, the College Board of Academic Affairs Board, and the College Board of School-University Partnership Board. Dr. Larkin's diligence in making the world around him a better place has taken many forms over the years. In his spare time, he has shown his dedication to his community as Greenfield Chamber of Commerce President, and as chair of the North Central Association Evaluation team for the Department of Defense in South Korea, England, and the Netherlands. And so it is my great pleasure to join with his family and friends, as well as all of the students whose lives he has touched, in wishing Dr. William Larkin a long, happy, and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I honor my friend, Mr. Donald Almquist, who is retiring after serving on the School Board in Greenfield, Wisconsin for 23 years. Don was the School Board president for eight years, and has also served as vice-president, and as treasurer. After retiring from a lengthy career in the Marine Corps, Don settled down in Greenfield where he has been an outstanding member of the community ever since. His work with such civic organizations as the Greenfield Lions Club, Greenfield Historical Society, American Legion, Boy Scouts of America, Greenfield Little League, and Vietnam Veterans of America have helped to make his community a better place to live. Over the past 23 years, Don has left his mark on the quality of education in Greenfield. He has initiated many programs for Greenfield students including a school breakfast program, and a Junior ROTC program. He was also instrumental in beginning the filming of School Board meetings for cable television broadcasting. Though this is his second retirement, Don will certainly have no trouble keeping himself busy. While he will no longer be a member of Greenfield's school board, he will continue his public service as the city's 4th district alderman, and president of the Common Council. He will also remain active in the Lion's Club, as well as the Education Scholarship Foundation, and a number of other community organizations. Don has received many awards from the Greenfield Lion's Club including: The President's Award, the Governor's Award, and the Melvin Jones Fellow Award. He was also honored with the 1996 Achievement Award as one of Wisconsin's Outstanding Vietnam Veterans. And so it is my great pleasure to extend my gratitude to my good friend Donald Almquist for his years of service, and my congratulations to him and his wife, Beverly, on a well deserved retirement.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has just said. We have to rethink, relook and revise our current Tax Code. But we have not done that yet. And for us to put the cart before the horse, to repeal the current code before we have an agreement on that new code, is not only irresponsible, but I would reterm this legislation as a pig in a poke, because we do not know what is going to be the replacement code. All week long before the Committee on Ways and Means, we have had hearings on three different types of alternatives to the current code, and the more questions we asked about the alternatives, the more questions went unanswered. The most popular was the one introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). He is touting this as a national sales tax, and the rate he pegged within the committee was 23 percent. Upon questioning, we found out that it is not 23 percent, it was almost 30 percent, on every good and service produced in this country, prescription drugs, funeral services, everything. We talked to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a scientific committee, to give us expertise. They said that national sales tax, to be revenue neutral, would have to be a 59 percent rate. Is that what you are going to replace the current code with? Interesting, I asked the gentleman a question. I said, Mr. Linder, would the national sales tax apply to wages for municipal employees? He said, Oh, no, no, no, no. Then one of his staff persons poked him on the back and said, it is in the bill. It is in the bill. So the authors do not even know what their proposal is. As the questioning developed, your municipality would have to pay the Federal Government 30 percent of their municipal wage base, because it is a service. And where would your municipalities get the money from? They would radically increase the property tax. In the City of Milwaukee, that would be a very, very bad mistake, because property taxes are relatively high. So that is a half-baked idea. So my friend, we are not ready to go yet. I agree with one part of the bill of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), and that is the commission. We have had hearings, we have had experts come in all week. Have the commission work with us on something, and then we will come to the floor with a consensus change and then repeal the current Tax Code. Not repeal first. That is irresponsible. The gentleman talked about the atomic bomb and how we dropped it on Japan and it ended the war. But what the gentleman's bill would do would drop the atomic bomb on us. That is silly.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Joint Resolution 94. I will attempt to make my points with logic rather than volume. This is the fifth time the House has taken up this particular constitutional amendment. It seems that since the Republicans have taken over control of the House, we have had over 100 constitutional amendments introduced. When we are sworn in every 2 years in January, we swear to uphold the Constitution and nowhere do we say we come here to rewrite the Constitution. Let us look back and see why the Framing Fathers put into the Constitution only three instances where a two-thirds vote would be necessary to take any action in the Government. One was to change the Constitution. They thought it was a very, very important, sacred document and much thought should go into changing the various articles of the Constitution and, if we intend to do that, let us do it by a two-thirds vote. They also provided that, if we were going to expel a Member from the House, one who was elected by a majority, I should add, of the people from his or her district, that should be done by a two-thirds vote. The last and only other instance where they provided for a two-thirds vote was overriding a presidential veto. And here again, the bill that got to the President got there by a majority vote of both houses; and if, in fact, we are going to disagree with the President's objections, that we should do it by more than a majority. And so the Framers indicated at that point, let us call for a two-thirds vote. Only those three instances. James Madison wisely observed in the Federalist Papers, supermajorities would reverse the fundamental principle of a free government. And he said, ``It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.'' Let me repeat that. ``It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.'' And how correct he is. For almost all actions in this House a majority vote is required. A majority vote is required to give tax breaks at times to those large and very vocal corporate citizens who do not deserve them. Those tax breaks, my colleagues, if this were to pass and become part of the Constitution, would only require that a minority could stop closing that loophole. And the reason why is because, under that situation, to close a tax loophole of, let us say, a foreign corporation operating here but transferring the profits to a foreign land to avoid taxation, if we were to close that loophole, it would take two-thirds. More importantly, it would take a minority to stop it. That is what this is all about, my colleagues. This is not to prevent willy-nilly tax increases to be placed upon the American people. Know full well that all of us in this Chamber and the Senate take that very seriously and it is done at times when it needs to be done. And if it is done without need and necessity, every 2 years we face the electorate and they will let their views be known. But for the Republicans to once again try to tamper with the Constitution to provide a two-thirds vote for changing the tax laws in this country and not to provide that same two-thirds vote to close loopholes, which has the effect of bringing in more revenue, loopholes which are unwarranted, which happen all too often in this House, for that they could stop it with a small minority. This constitutional amendment is not wise. It should not be supported by the House. If the taxpayers object to any tax action by the Committee on Ways and Means that I serve on or action by the full House, they will let their views be known. Let no one be kidded about that. The gentleman who is controlling time on the other side indicated the great things we did with the welfare reform. But I should point out to him and to the other Members in the Chamber, if there are any, which there are not, that that was done with a majority vote. And if, in fact, that was so important, why do they not provide for a two-thirds vote for actions of the House dealing with issues like welfare reform? I would say that would be ridiculous. Because the stated principle of this country is majority rules. In the House Rules, when the Republicans took over in 1994, they provided a supermajority, 60 percent, to pass any tax increases. That is in the House Rules today, the rules that govern our activity in this Chamber. And every time that has come before the House, every time legislation has come before the House to raise taxes, and we have had it in H.R. 2491 in 1996, in H.R. 2425 that same year, we have had it again in 1996 in H.R. 3103, every time those increases came before us, the Republicans waived the House Rules. By waiving the House Rules, they cast them aside. We do not look at them for that action. So consistency is not one of the Republican virtues evidently. But, nevertheless, this constitutional amendment is ill advised and it should not be supported by the Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of intriguing that the Republicans are trying to rewrite history, for if we go back to when this administration took over, they inherited a debt approaching $280 billion a year from the Bush administration. It was in 1993 that this Congress bit the bullet and passed a deficit reduction bill which massively cut spending, and it did adjust some taxes, but the effect of that legislation was to bring this country where we are today, enjoying the greatest economic growth in its history. If it makes Republicans feel good and they want to take credit for it, let them do it. But let us not rewrite history, because this administration, when it took over, inherited an annual debt approaching if not exceeding some $280 billion a year in red ink. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just stated that all of America does not support tax increases, and that is clearly true. Last year, the Republicans in the House produced a massive tax cut bill. They passed it. They went home for the August break, came back, and that was the last we heard about of it because all of the American public did not support the direction of that tax cut bill because they felt that reducing the Federal debt was more important. Saving Social Security, and modernizing Medicare was more important. I should also point out to the gentleman from Kansas that all of his district did not support his coming here. Who did? A majority did. So if a majority is good enough to get him here to Congress, if a majority is good enough to have this Congress declare war, I would think tax policy in this country should be made by that same majority. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, what was the committee vote on the Committee on the Judiciary to recommend this resolution to passage?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The real reason we are here today debating this issue is that this is an election year and we need a rollcall. We need a rollcall on who supports increasing taxes with a two-thirds vote. To prove my point, I ask the Speaker to look around the Chamber. Here the House is involved in doing one of the more important, if not the most important, functions that we were elected to do; and the interest level is so high, no one bothered to come. Of the hundred or so authors of this amendment, they are not lined up to come and defend it. They know as well as you know, as well as I know, this is for show. Like the swallows coming back to Capistrano, this constitutional amendment is here because it is an election year. I ask my friends, where is the constitutional amendment to provide a two-thirds vote to decrease Social Security benefits that millions of Americans depend on? Where is the constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to cut Medicare? Where is your constitutional amendment to provide a two- thirds vote to cut education funding for our kids? That is not here, and it ain't coming here because that we can do by a majority vote. But we need two-thirds to lock in tax loopholes for some people's corporate friends. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Swallows.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we have a sad situation in this country where American citizens are renouncing their citizenship, taking their wealth to foreign countries in a very, very obvious attempt to avoid any taxation. If, in fact, this constitutional amendment would prevail and be ratified by the States, what would the effect be on American citizens renouncing their citizenship and us trying to stop that outflow for tax avoidance?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the framers of the Constitution provided that Congress shall have the sole power to declare war, and under that constitutional provision a majority, a majority, of both Houses is required. If, in fact, there was a need to amend the Constitution to provide for a two-thirds vote, surely do not you think a declaration of war, and not taxes, should be the item that we would be debating today? Do you think a declaration of war is less important than the tax issue of this country? I think not. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) would have gone to that same town and asked the people on the west side of town what the major priorities in Congress are, they would have probably told him, Mr. Congressman, we need more money for defense. We have to increase the readiness of our armed services. And, by the way, Mr. Congressman, the bridge on Main Street is in need of repair. And we sure could use that 90 percent Federal funding for that new bridge. Then as my colleague went to the east side of town and talked to the poor individuals, they would have probably said, Yes, we could use some relief. But, Mr. Congressman, my son or my daughter wants to go to college, and, boy, if you could increase the Pell Grants for that child of mine, that would sure be neat. The earned-income tax credit, that could use a look-see again by the Congress. Yes, that will cost some money. And the point I am trying to make, my colleagues, is that all these needs and desires of the American public cost money. My Republican colleagues seem to think that defense money comes from heaven and not from taxpayers and any other social program, like Medicare and drug benefits and other things that we fight for on this floor, that comes from the taxpayer. And the truth of the matter is that all those expenditures are funded by the taxpayers. So, sure, we would all like to decrease taxes; but when we ask our constituents what program will they forego, we will find out that budget cutting is not the easiest in the world. We are going to put in big money for the National Institutes of Health, which we should do, to study children's diabetes and cancer and all sorts of other diseases. But those programs are funded off these nasty things we are talking about called taxes. There is an old saying, ``Don't cut you, don't cut me, cut the man behind the tree.'' We cannot find the man behind the tree nor the tree. So my colleagues should not come before the body and say, boy, we need two-thirds to have any tax increase. If that is so, then we should have two-thirds to have any spending increases too for their favorite programs and my favorite programs. That would be fair. But that is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise each side how much time is remaining on this issue.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today's mass at St. Peter's will be hosted by the Republican Conference. The homily will be given by the House Chaplain and he will speak in support of the H.R. 4199, to abolish the Tax Code by the year 2004. Does that sound ridiculous to my colleagues? It sure does to me as a Catholic Member of this House. But let me review for my colleagues what transpired yesterday. There was a mass at St. Peter's hosted by the Republican National Committee to honor and to introduce the new chaplain of the House followed by a reception in the church basement. We were told that all Members were invited to mass. But in reality, only 26 Republicans were given the invitation. Mr. Speaker, masses have been conducted in this world by Catholic clergy for centuries; and never, never in my recollection have they been hosted by a political party. I think it is wrong. I think it is misdirected. And I am told at the mass itself speaking to the congregation was the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Nicholson, and a former Member of this House who headed up the campaign committee. I think the Republicans have gone too far this time. For those of my colleagues who do not know the background, the chaplain of the House announced he was retiring. The Speaker appointed a bipartisan Search Committee made up of nine Republicans and nine Democrats to find a new chaplain. They interviewed 37 clergymen, and they came up with the top choice of a Catholic priest. But that was not to be. The Republicans would not stand still for a Catholic, the first in the history of this country to be chaplain of this House. So they bypassed him for the man who came in number three. Then a big uproar occurred. Catholics throughout the country were just totally up in arms, and they knew they were going to lose the Catholic vote this November. So what do they do? They bring a resolution to the floor praising the Catholic schools. I am a product of that Catholic education. I do not need my Republican colleagues telling me how good the education is. They kept slipping with the Catholics. Then they found Cardinal O'Connor in New York. So one day we had a resolution to give him a gold medal and that still did not help the slippage with the Catholic vote. So then the Speaker swallowed his pride and he himself appointed a Catholic priest from Chicago who was not interviewed by the committee but he was a Catholic, and he thought that would stop the hemorrhage of the loss of the Catholic vote; and everything was quiet for a couple weeks and we started to heal. And then, out of the blue, comes a mass at St. Peter's sponsored by the Republican National Committee. Mr. Speaker, today the only word that my colleagues could come up with was this is ``disgusting.'' The Catholic celebration of mass does not need promotion from my colleagues, guys. We go there voluntarily. If it was the Democratic party pulling this nonsense, I would be on this floor tonight. When is this going to stop? Are they going to ridicule my entire religion? Have they bought into the notion from Bob Jones University that we are a cult, that the Pope is anit-Christ? In the press reports today on this debacle, we are told by a spokesman for the Republican National Committee that he is sorry that some Democrats were finding fault with this event, with this ``event.'' The mastermind who they dusted off, a former ambassador to the Vatican, stated in this article, I have been to events sponsored by lots of organizations, including Democrats, and there has never been any problem. Is this an event? Is this like a college football bowl game where there is a sponsor, the Rose Bowl is brought to us buy Microsoft, today's mass is brought to us by some foundation? Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the House have gone over the line. I have asked the Catholic Bishop's Conference to review this matter. I believe that what they have done is turn this Catholic chaplain into a Republican poster-priest.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I highlight this Saturday's Jennie Ramus Memorial Benefit to be held at Thomas More High School, in Milwaukee, WI. Jennie Ramus, the daughter of Wayne and Theresa Ramus, was a Thomas More senior whose life was cut short by a drunk driver in December of 1998. The Jennie Fund, an initiative to create a $100,000 endowment fund, was established in January 1999 at Thomas More High School to provide scholarships for students seeking financial assistance and willing to take an active role in the Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) program and support community awareness and prevention of drinking and driving, drug abuse and violence. Thanks to the support and generosity of many, the fund has received over $80,000 to date. Saturday's event, sponsored by the Wisconsin Polka Hall of Fame and Thomas More High School, will begin with a Mass to be followed by a community music festival, dancing, SADD and Jennie Fund presentations. I commend the Jennie Fund and SADD for their efforts and the Thomas More High School community for their financial contributions and prayers in memory of this once vibrant former student.