Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 34, line 6 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Connecticut yield?

Mr. KOLBE. I yield under my reservation to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. I would still argue that as we start to earmark particular amounts of departmental monies, it is going to make it that much more difficult for them to meet their other requirements and that is the only reason I oppose the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition not because I disagree with what the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) is trying to do. I rise in opposition not because I do not agree with the merits of the program that she discussed. As she has told us, this is a program that I think has a lot of merit, and this program had very strong bipartisan support when we passed the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998, because it did permit the Treasury Department, in consultation with Justice, to develop a grant program for State and local agencies to go after money laundering activities, which we know is a very serious problem, and is really at the root, the heart of the problem with our drug trafficking. If we cannot get at the money, we cannot really stop the drug trafficking. The Federal government alone cannot do this, it takes State and local agencies to do it, so the intent was very, very good. The problem that we have is a very simple one of budgetary constraints that are faced by this committee. Because it was a new program, we did not provide funds for this. I just would want to mention to the committee that we have made a very substantial cut in this particular line of Treasury, more than, I think, I would like to see. The request was for $53.5 million. We initially at the subcommittee level provided $35.9 million. We have taken another $4.5 million out of there in the full committee. That reduction was part of what we did in order to bring us down to the level necessary to meet the 1999 appropriated levels. The concern that I would have about designating $3 million out of what has been a shrinking pot here, or a shrinking piece of the pie, for the Justice Department for these operations is that we are going to cut deeply, I fear, into some of the other programs that are covered by this, which of course includes the modernization, the human resources reengineering project which is going on Treasury-wide to try to bring about a new personnel system within the department. They are continuing their Y2K conversion, their productivity enhancements, all the things we have directed them to do. I fear that if we designate this amount of money, we are going to be cutting someplace else. It does mean a cut from someplace else because we have not changed the total amount available to the Department. So I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. It is a program that I have a lot of interest in, and I think many of us sympathize with this. But I just believe that under the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for us to try to earmark this amount in this relatively small departmental appropriation. For that reason, I would oppose it.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what both the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, and I think they have highlighted an important problem. I want to assure them that I will work with them in the conference committee to try to craft the right language that can get this study done that I think does need to be done.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say once again that I think this is a good bill. I hope it will be supported by Members. I would join with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in my thanks to the staff on both sides of the aisle who have done such a good job to get us to this point. They are the unsung heroes of this legislation. I thank them, those that are around me and those on the other side, for the fine job they have done.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for raising this issue. I would certainly be happy to work with the gentleman to accommodate his concerns by working with him regarding a study of this matter and language to be incorporated in the conference report for H.R. 2490, and I hope that might satisfy the gentleman's concerns.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has not only a lot of Federal employees in her district but has done yeoman's work on issues dealing with Federal employees.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been so instrumental in helping bring about the IRS reforms and restructuring and is the individual who has worked very hard on this and understands what this restructuring is all about.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be on the floor this afternoon to present to my colleagues H.R. 2490, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. As this bill has been reported by the full committee, it provides $13.5 billion in discretionary budget authority for the agencies that come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. The level of funding is the same, I want to repeat that, this is the same level of funding as the amount appropriated in FY 1999. The bill presented here today is strong on law enforcement, tough on drugs, supportive of efforts to restructure and reform the way IRS does business, and increases Federal resources to enforce our current gun laws. All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. That has been a tall order for our subcommittee to fill. With the help of my colleagues on the subcommittee and the committee, we have accomplished what I think is a very daunting task. I want to take this opportunity to thank everybody for their help on this bill, all the Members, particularly my ranking member the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and his staff, Scott Nance and Pat Scheulter, who have done an outstanding job to help us get to where we are today. I might add, I think this bill comes to the floor in a very bipartisan fashion. We have differences, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) will explain, but we come to the floor in a very bipartisan fashion because we have worked well together on this. I salute my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for the work that he has done and his assistance in getting us to this point. I believe that, in its current form, this is an excellent bill and, remarkably, it is a clean bill. There are not controversial legislative riders on this bill. Believe it or not, this bill is an appropriations bill, pure and simple. It is my hope that it will remain that way not only on the floor here today but also as we move through conference with the Senate. My colleagues know that the allocation required us to make some tough choices to put this bill together. This allocation is based on budget caps, which, may I remind everybody, both parties in both chambers and the President of the United States support. In order to keep pace with inflation, the subcommittee needed nearly $600 million in new money. But clearly the allocation we received did not give us that. So in order to support the base operations of the agencies which we fund, we were required to look elsewhere for our savings. We found these savings. We found these savings by postponing construction of new courthouses, by extending the time that was needed to complete some of our projects. However, let me make it clear that the funding levels that are contained in this bill will adversely affect no programs. In fact, we were able to increase critical efforts to keep guns out of the hands of children, to make sure that the IRS treats taxpayers fairly. In addition, I want to remind my colleagues that this bill supports approximately 30 percent of all the Federal law enforcement operations, the personnel that are in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, those in the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In total, the bill before us provides $4.4 billion for these efforts, the same as the President's request, and about $185 million above the current year. We target all of these resources to supporting efforts that enforce and implement laws currently on our books, laws that seek to prevent guns from getting in the hands of criminals and youths, laws that seek to prevent illegal drugs from coming across our borders, and laws that seek to protect our Nation's leaders and the financial systems of this country. I know that many Members in this body feel that the Federal Government is too big, that it is bloated and it is inefficient. I, for one, agree completely that we need to be able to transfer more power and more money out of Washington and back to our States and our local communities. But we should not do this in a haphazard and irresponsible fashion. I cannot support amendments which make additional funding reductions to this bill. We are already $840 million below what the status quo would be with inflation alone. Further reductions would allow our infrastructure to deteriorate. It would cause us to delay the IRS reforms that we all voted for so willingly last year. It would rob our law enforcement agencies of the resources they desperately need. It would negatively impact our ability to protect our borders. I have had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee for 3 years. I believe that we have applied a fiscally conservative philosophy to this bill, one which I certainly share. I think we have steadily chipped away at inefficiencies that we find in Government, at least in the agencies that are included within the jurisdiction of this bill. The bill that is before us today continues to do this, but I think it does so in a responsible and a well thought out way. We have spent the past 6 months carefully scrubbing the appropriations requests we received from the administration, from OMB, and from each of these agencies that come under our jurisdiction. The funding levels that are recommended in this bill reflect what I believe is the best judgment of the Subcommittee and the Full Committee on Appropriations, their judgment about the funding levels that are necessary to sustain the operations of agencies that are under our jurisdiction. So I urge, no, in fact I would implore my colleagues not to make other radical cuts to the beneficial programs that this bill supports. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to withhold amendments that would ultimately jeopardize our sending this bill to the President in a timely manner. Let us get on with the business of appropriating. Let us get on with moving this bill forward. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY99.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY99.002 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of things very clear. I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I do believe this is not about, and I think all of us would agree with this, this is not about the current occupant of the White House. This salary change would not affect that individual. I think there are some other points that go along with that, and that is that this is the right time to do this. This is the right time to do this for a couple of reasons. One, we are 18 months away from an election and having another President. That gives us a moment to look at this for the future. Another reason that we need to think about it now is that, unlike Members' compensation where the courts have ruled that, under the 28th amendment, a cost-of-living adjustment is not a change or a compensation, the Constitution is very clear, there can be no change to the President's compensation during the term of office. So that, if we do not do this now, we are really looking at 2005 as the next time any kind of change could be made to the compensation of the President. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) I thought speaks both very eloquently and clearly about why this is justified. And his subcommittee has done some yeoman's work on this, as the work of his subcommittee I think has brought us where we are today and caused us to include this in our bill. As he has pointed out and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has pointed out, the President's salary has not been adjusted since 1969. That is quite a time. And as I have just pointed out, if we do not make this adjustment now, this one, which, by the way, has no effect on the appropriations bill for this year and only for part of the following year, that is anything after January 20, 2001, if we do not make the change now, we are looking, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) has pointed out, at a situation where the Speaker of the House and the Vice President would actually be making more than the President of the United States might by the year about 2003. Now, if we go back to the last time we adjusted the President's salary in 1969 and we gave just the cost-of-living adjustments that other Federal employees have had since that time, the salary today would be $726,000. If the salary had kept pace with inflation, it would be $936,000, which suggests that we have perhaps not kept Federal employees in pace with inflation. Or, stated another way, in today's dollars the value of that $200,000 that we paid in 1969 is $45,367. Or we can look at the last time there was a formal recommendation on President's pay, and that was 1989 when the Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries met and they recommended the President's pay be increased from $200,000 to $350,000. If we assumed inflationary adjustments just since that time, the same inflationary adjustments that the Federal employees have had, the President's salary would be approximately $458,000. So I think that by any measure that we look at this, by purchasing power, by what we paid in 1969 and what it might have been adjusted, what we recommended in 1989 and how that might be adjusted, we are considerably under that level. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a more substantive reason for this. The United States is the preeminent power in the world. We are the major power in the world. And I believe that the job of the Chief Executive of the United States is an incredibly important and difficult job. There is not going to be any compensation that we can pay that can cover that, in my opinion. And as has been pointed out correctly by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), there are a lot of things that the President of the United States enjoys that are not available to the rest of us. But, nonetheless, the President has to think about his future, about his retirement, about his family, about how he covers those expenses during time in office and after the time in office. If we are going to attract the right people to run for office, whether it is this office or the President's office, we have to, I think, have compensation that makes sense. And when we are paying the President of the United States less than we pay in many cases branch managers of banks, it simply makes no sense to me. I believe that this compensation is long overdue. It is a modest increase. I believe that it is fully justified under any analysis that my colleagues might give to this issue. I hope we will defeat this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE. Continuing under my reservation, Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), if he intends just to discuss this, can just strike the last word and discuss the issue. My concern is, about doing this, is if somebody else comes back and says they want to come back.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 2490) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I will not use that time; however, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) yielding it to me. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I am very pleased with the rule that we have before us today which brings this appropriations bill for Treasury-Postal and General Government to the floor. It is a rule that I do not think anybody could possibly object to. It is an open rule, allows any striking amendment or any amendment dealing with appropriations matters to be offered. The rule protects those items which are already in the bill, as we normally do, from being stricken on a point of order. And, quite frankly, a number of the agencies that this subcommittee funds are not authorized agencies because authorizing committees have not been able to get legislation to the floor for year after year after year to authorize those agencies. So this legislation, this resolution does exactly what it ought to do on an appropriation bill, allow it to be considered as an appropriation matter. Any amendment dealing with appropriations may be offered and what is in the bill will be protected, and it does not include the offering of extraneous legislative matters that have not previously been considered in the subcommittee or the committee. Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution. This is a good rule. It deserves the support of every Member in the body, and I hope that when we come to the question of the previous question, Members will support the previous question and they will vote ``aye'' on passage of this rule so that we can move on today to consideration of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time, and I urge adoption of this rule.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have listened with interest to the debate that has been going on this evening, and I have listened to my distinguished colleague and friend from Wisconsin, and I share some of the concerns that he expresses about what has happened in our country, in our society as a result of the proliferation of gambling, which no doubt has, in large measure, stemmed from the extent of gambling on Indian reservations. I listened to my colleague from Arizona talk about why we need to allow this to be settled by the courts, and I have listened to the people talk about the issue of tribal sovereignty, and I have listened to the people talk about States' rights. And I am aware of what has gone on in my State, where our governor has taken a position and we have had a struggle in our State with many of the Indian tribes trying to reach compacts. But I want to talk to my colleagues tonight for just a moment about it from a different level. Because just 5 days ago I was on one of my reservations in southern Arizona where I saw the impact of what has happened as a result of this gaming. The Pasqua Yaqui tribal reservation is a very small tribe and a very small reservation in an urban setting on the edge of the City of Tucson, with land that has no economic value other than what they have been able to do in terms of scraping it together to make their homes but which now has a casino there which is used by those in the urban area of Tucson. I was there last Saturday for the dedication of the Boys and Girls Club. Now, the construction of this came from a Department of Justice grant that goes to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. And, by the way, this was the 49th Boys and Girls Club on a Native American Indian reservation. By the end of next year we will have over 100 of those Boys and Girls Clubs on Indian reservations. I think that, in itself, speaks monuments to what we are accomplishing. But the operation of this Boys and Girls Club and the programs that are going to take place there come as a result of the revenue that they receive from Indian gaming. I talked to the director of the tribal health service, and he told me about some of the programs that they are doing with teenagers, with teenage mothers and the prevention of pregnancies; and what they are doing to prevent diabetes, which has been so rampant in so many of the other Native American tribes of the Southwest; and some of the other programs they are doing to deal with heart disease and all kinds of medical problems. It is the most innovative program in health care probably in our whole area. I talked to an Anglo doctor who is their consultant on medical issues, and he told me what this tribe is doing with the limited amount of resources they have been receiving from the small casino that they have on their reservation is truly remarkable and has really turned around this tribe and made them a healthier people and created a better life for them. I talked to many of the young men who were there as policemen that day who were providing protection for people who live on this reservation that they had never had before, an area which was subject to rapes, to burglaries, to robberies. And I talked to some of the firemen that were there that day during this dedication, and they are providing fire protection and emergency medical care that was not available before, and all of this comes as a result of this revenue that comes from Indian gaming. This was not there before for this tribe. This was a tribe that lived in absolute abject poverty that was shuttled off to the edge of the city of Tucson, and they have been able to make something of themselves as a result of this. Now, I realize there are legitimate questions which have been raised by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). The gentleman from Virginia earlier spoke very eloquently about what gambling does in our society, and I think these issues need to be addressed. But as long as we have this in our society, as long as this is there, I think we need to understand what a difference this can make for native American tribes and how it has changed the lives of their people. For that reason alone, I think that what we are trying to do with the Indian gaming legislation, as we try to maneuver our way through this, we ought to think very carefully about any kind of changes that we make to this. And it is for that reason that I would oppose the kind of amendment that is being proposed here today, which I think would really stop it in its tracks and make it impossible for tribes to really enjoy the economic fruits of the rest of us today as a result of a very healthy and good economy we are enjoying. I urge that we oppose this amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 1999 the House debated H. Con. Res. 107, a sense of the Congress rejecting the notion that sex between adults and children is positive, and H. Con. Res. 117, a sense of Congress concerning United Nations Assembly Resolution ES-10/6. I was en route from Tucson to Washington, DC, when both votes took place. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 107 and ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 117. The House also voted on Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me. Sixteen years ago a young man showed up on my doorstep of myself and my then wife, and he had been in long-term foster care. I had met him in a high school while I was visiting there. He literally had no place to turn at that point. The foster care system dumped him out, he just turned 18, he had no place to go. We were able to help him, to take him in, to help provide an education, to get him started with a job, and, as a result, he has gone on to be an enormously successful executive today. But I think of his experience and how many young people did not have someplace to turn and the problems that they have, because surely when a young person turns 18, a young man, a young woman turns 18, they are not ready completely to be independent. They need some assistance, they need some help, and this legislation, and I commend the gentlewoman for bringing this legislation to us, is exactly what we need to help these young people get on their own feet and to be able to go forward. This is the kind of legislation that we must have if we are going to provide these young people with the opportunity to go forward with their lives. For many of them, it is the lack of an education, it is the lack of job training, and they suddenly find themselves turned out by the system. It is a cold day when they turn 18 and the system says we no longer have any responsibility and we no longer have any legal ability to help them. This changes that. This makes it possible for us to help these young people get started, and I believe with this legislation we will be able to assist young people to get a start in the world, to become productive tax-paying citizens and citizens that we can all be very proud of.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, Congress enacted the first Federal flag protection act in the midst of the Vietnam War protests. However, Madam Speaker, I was not here to see these protests, I was in Vietnam, fighting for the very freedoms some are seeking to limit today. The flag is a special symbol for our country, but it is certainly no more than the Constitution itself. Embodied in our Constitution is the First Amendment. The First Amendment is no small part of the protections that make our country unique in the history of civilization and no small part of the freedoms others and I fought to protect. Freedom of speech protects both those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree. What we are debating today is a proposal to chip away at the First Amendment and I cannot support that. I would like to see the intellectual prowess of this institution brought to bear upon the task of drafting legislation would make it illegal to desecrate the flag of the United States and still meet the Constitutional standard. However, taking the simplistic but dangerous task of amending the Constitution to accomplish this end is neither agreeable nor advisable. I ask my colleagues to consider the monumental implications of today's proposal. We are toying with a right we all hold dear: that of free speech. Though this Amendment may sound reasonable on the surface, I implore you to look beyond the superficial. Recall that in the 1975 case of Spence v. Washington, taping a peace symbol to the flag was at issue. Do you really believe imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for such an act? The fundamental issue is public protest--that is what gave rise to this issue and that is also the heart of First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court articulated a standard in the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson by which each of us should consider this issue. In that flag desecration case, the Court said: the First Amendment stops the government from prohibiting expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive, even when the flag is involved. Can anyone stand before us with intellectual honesty and deny that this is precisely what we aim to do? Consider the language of the 1990 flag case of U.S. v. Eichman: The Government's desire to preserve the flag as a symbol for certain national ideals is implicated ``only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates [a] message'' to others that is inconsistent with those ideals. To me freedom is greater than any symbol can encapsulate. How can we possibly promote freedom by restricting an object that is so clearly identified as a symbol of freedom? What should give all of us pause is that we stand in the Capitol of the government and debate outlawing speech with which we disagree. I cannot support such an Orwellian piece of legislation.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply state that we are prepared to use language that conforms precisely to language that was used in AIR- 21 last week on another project in Newport News that would apparently do that. We have attempted to have discussions with the staff about this and apparently have not had a great deal of success. I must say that this objection is very devastating to this community, which has been trying very hard for a long time to get this very small project of economic development off the ground. I would just simply say that I do not think that this language is different than has been provided in other cases, and I do believe we can point to that.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, while I will concede the point of order, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the distinguished chairman, about his reasons for objecting to this. Let me just state, for the record, that I have been working closely with the local community, the local FAA representatives, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, for years to draft language that is acceptable and have attempted to work with his committee and committee staff to do that. This has been the result of long discussions to get us to where we are. It only allows the FAA to waive terms contained in the 1956 deed of conveyance more than 40 years ago. It does not require them to do so. This is land which is vitally needed in order for this small rural community where unemployment is three times the rate of other areas in Arizona to develop an industrial park in this area. I am just curious as to why this particular provision, looking at all the provisions in here that were not singled out, as to why this one has been singled out.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding accomplishments of Glenn Schatz, a senior at University High in Tucson. Glenn has been named winner of the 1999 Tucson Citizen Student Athlete-of-the-Year Award, which is presented annually to a high school senior who excels in scholarship, leadership and extracurricular activities. I met Glenn when I appointed him to be a Congressional Page last spring, a job he approached with the same commitment and zeal as he has the rest of his academic career. A four- sport letterman who has managed to maintain a 3.92 grade point average, while at the same time participating in the school's marching, jazz, and concert bands. He served as president of the school's Distributive Education Club of America, the school chairman of the Young Republicans Club, and a recruiter for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Additionally, he has been named a Presidential Scholar Award semifinalist and a National Merit Scholarship finalist. Glenn will be heading off to the United States Naval Academy in the fall, eventually to join the Navy's Judge Advocate General (JAG) corps. I have no doubt that Glenn has the intelligence, commitment, and ability to accomplish whatever goals he sets for his future. I congratulate him on his enormous accomplishments, and wish him all the good fortune in the future. I am enclosing an article from one of the newspapers in my district, which further details the accomplishments of this impressive young man. It'll Be Anchors Aweigh When Superbusy Senior Leaves University High Some students have a full plate in high school. University High senior Glenn Schatz goes back for seconds. He has balanced a busy athletic schedule with the Rincon/ University Rangers with his studies, his music, and on-campus and off-campus activities to post a 3.92 grade-point average. An impressive list of achievements has made this four-sport lettermen the winner of the 1999 Tucson Citizen Student Athlete-of-the-Year Award. ``You never expect to win this type of award,'' Schatz said. ``There are so many quality nominees, it's a honor just to be nominated.'' But Rangers football coach Jeff Green isn't surprised Schatz is this year's winner. ``He certainly deserves the award,'' Green said. ``With all he's involved in, his grades, his leadership on and off the field . . . the future is bright for this young man.'' Some of his academic highlights are: Scoring a 1,590 out of 1,600 on his SAT, getting a perfect score on the verbal and missing just one math question; received a Congressional appointment from Jim Kolbe to the United States Naval Academy, which he will attend in the fall; a National Merit Scholarship finalist; recently named a Presidential Scholar Award semifinalist; awarded a Cornell University summer dean's scholarship; and won a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund writing award. Out of the classroom, Schatz has: served a semester as a Congressional page in Washington; attended the Athletics In Public Service Forum in Washington; was selected by the Academy of Achievement for the Banquet of the Golden Plate, one of 400 students in the nation chosen; a member of the school's marching, jazz and concert bands; and served as president of the school's Distributive Education Club in America, school chairman of the Young Republicans Club and as a recruiter for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. ``I like to keep busy,'' said Schatz, a budding master of understatement. With only 22 players on the Rangers varsity roster football team last fall, Green kept the versatile Schatz busy at numerous positions on offense and defense. ``Because Glenn is quick to learn and such a good athlete, we played him at a lot of different positions,'' Green said. ``On offense, we used him at fullback, tight end, wide receiver and flanker. On defense, we used him at linebacker, end, middle guard and tackle. He never complained. He was willing to do whatever it took to help us win. He showed his leadership abilities every day.'' Prior to the football season, Green, in his first year as coach of the Rangers, didn't know what he had in the 6-foot- 3, 215-pound Schatz. The senior missed spring practice because he was working as a Congressional page, and he missed most of the summer passing league because he was taking college courses at Cornell. ``I didn't expect Glenn to come back to us in great shape and wasn't expecting that much of him,'' Green admitted. ``He was a pleasant surprise for us. He did a nice job in the brief time we had him for the passing league, but a passing league isn't football. I didn't know how tough he was, both physically and mentally, so I wasn't sure what he could give us.'' But Schatz, who lettered three years in football, two in basketball, one in baseball and one in track, showed Green he could be an impact player and impressed the Navy football coaches, who would have offered Schatz a scholarship if he hadn't received a Congressional appointment. ``Can he play at Navy? I think he can because he's so versatile and because he can run well for his size,'' Green said. ``At the next level it's difficult, but his goal is to make the traveling squad as a freshman, and I don't think there are too many goals that Glenn has ever missed.'' Schatz already had planned to serve in the armed forces after graduating from college, intending to take ROTC. ``At the beginning of the year, the Naval Academy was a side thought for me,'' he said. ``But the more I thought about it, the more it appealed to me, the way the system works, how everything has a set structure, because that fits my character. ``I have an uncle who went to West Point. My whole family has served in one capacity or another. It's always been part of my background and heritage.'' Schatz hopes to become a lawyer and join the Navy's Judge Advocate General (JAG) corps. ``The nice thing is that the Navy will pay for graduate school and law school,'' he said. ``Through ROTC, I would have only served four years, but coming out of the Academy, I think I'll advance pretty quickly, so now I'm thinking about making the Navy my career.'' And perhaps later, a career in politics might come along. Schatz called his semester in Washington as a Congressional page ``the best experience of my life'' and said he might run for Congress some day. ``The experience of working with Congressman, people who control the way the country works, was wonderful,'' he said. ``I worked in the Clerk's office and worked on the House floor. I interacted with all the Congressmen. I had to answer calls, take messages to the Congressmen. It was really something special.'' As is the 1999 winner of the Citizen's Student Athlete-of- the-Year award.