John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OLVER. Under my reservation, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for his leadership in reaching this agreement. The two bills did contain substantial differences, and I believe that they have been resolved very fairly. I also wish to thank the staffs, particularly Valerie Baldwin, Brian Potts, Tom McNamara, and Tom Forhan of the committee staff and Suzy Dumont from my own staff. I think also the bill is a good bill. I hope we will have a resounding ``yes'' vote on the legislation.

Mr. OLVER. I have certainly carefully listened to the exchange between the gentleman from Georgia and the chairman of the subcommittee and we will work together on the points that have been raised.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, in its current form, the farm bill before us shortchanges conservation programs that serve farms and ranches of all sizes all over the country while increasing subsidies for large, often corporate operations that are producing commodity crops in specific parts of the country. Many farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards of the land, to restore lost wetlands, grasslands, and implement a variety of other practices to protect wildlife habitat. There is a long list of farmers eager to participate in conservation programs. Currently, 67 percent of the payments go to only 10 percent of the farmers, excluding most of our Nation's farms. The Boehlert-Kind amendment makes payments available to more farmers in more regions of the country by funding conservation programs from which all farmers can benefit because they are not based primarily on the level of production of a narrow group of crops. The Boehlert-Kind amendment shifts only about 2.5 percent of the overall dollar authorization in this legislation away from the largest corporate producers and increases the funding for land conservation programs in every single State in the country. Furthermore, President Bush does not support the committee's bill in its current form. The statement of administration policy states that the farm bill, ``Misses an opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm program through innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to working lands.'' The Bush administration also criticizes the bill for encouraging overproduction when prices are low and for failing to help the agricultural producers most in need, especially smaller farms and ranches. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to address these flaws by voting in support of the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This amendment will aid small and medium-sized agricultural producers while expanding conservation programs. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct as a bipartisan effort to help the men and women serving overseas in the defense of our country. The motion is simple. It tells the House conferees to hold the line and support the overseas requests made by the President and those added in the House. Mr. Speaker, September 11 has taught us that our men and women must be ready, wherever in the world they are stationed. The President requested almost $900 million in military construction projects overseas. The committee carefully reviewed those projects, and we have supported them. It meets needs for barracks, for maintenance facilities, for runways for our air forces, for warehousing, family housing, barracks, all of those. It all will make substantial contributions to our readiness. But the House has added, in addition, several items. Through the leadership of the chairman, he and I have had an opportunity to visit several of the bases that are involved in this. Members of the subcommittee joined us, and other Members of the House joined us in that. We have directly visited and can bear witness to the severe inadequacy of some of these facilities. The total of that is less than 1 percent of this military construction budget as it was passed through the House. They are all very badly needed projects, as both the chairman and I can attest. Let me just give a couple of examples. In Japan, actually in Okinawa, which is where most of our forces in Japan are, there is a what-was-never-adequate facility for the training of our Army Special Forces in urban warfare. It is now utterly worn out and virtually unusable. That is additionally in this legislation. In Korea, there is a barracks replacement for singles in Korea. The conditions of housing in Korea up and down the line are well known as being abysmal. Families avoid, if at all possible, deployment in Korea, so the vast majority of our deployments are in fact singles, and their housing is anywhere from rundown to positively disgusting. So that has been funded in our bill. Then, as another example, we have a modernization of the base engineering complex for engineering and maintenance, and all of the operational facilities at our largest Air Force base. In the process of that modernization, which is in Korea at our main air base, which is at the front line of protection for our substantial forces in Korea, that will allow hundreds of housing units to then be brought within the perimeter of the protection of that base. Those are all extremely important things to be done, and they need to be done in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, they are badly needed. They are in direct support of the missions that we know will come, even if September 11 had not happened. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote in favor of this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who can always be so very eloquent on this issue and on so many others. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill, but I do want to state my very strong opposition to the effort expected here shortly on this floor to prevent the people of D.C. from spending their local tax dollars, which is nearly 95 percent of the whole budget that we are talking about, for the city, for the District of Columbia, to spend that money as they see fit: namely, to implement a 1992 District law that provides health plan benefits to unmarried domestic partners of city employees, regardless of gender. Mr. Chairman, the people of Washington, like all Americans, have had a long 2 weeks. It is appalling to me that we are now considering what can only be described as a slap in the face to the people of D.C. and their elected officials. Washington, D.C. should have the right to grant domestic partner benefits with their own local tax dollars. This issue is not new. Across this country, at least 113 local jurisdictions over the length and breadth of the country, from large cities like San Diego to small towns, like Bar Harbor in Maine, offer similar benefits and rights for the domestic partners of local residents. It is clearly not unusual and is clearly a matter of home rule, or should be a matter of home rule. What is unusual is the effort to insert the heavy hand of the Federal Government in this local municipal issue. After the tragic events of September 11, average Americans are feeling a renewed desire to participate and contribute to this great democracy. Let us not ridicule their efforts with gratuitous, mean- spirited riders. I urge Members to vote against that amendment when it comes up.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend Paul W. Ivory, who as of September 30 will retire as the Administrator of Chesterwood, the former country home and studio of sculptor Daniel Chester French in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. French was the creator of two of America's most powerful symbols: The Minute Man (1875) in Concord, Massachusetts and Abraham Lincoln (1922) for the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. At Chesterwood, which was designed by noted architect Henry Bacon, French executed many commissions, and he also designed the gardens and woodland walks around the grounds. French is considered to be one of the most important artists of the late 19th century and early 20th century when our country was undergoing enormous change as an emerging world power. Playing a large role in a national movement to commemorate its heroes, French created more than 100 works of public sculpture. In 1969, Chesterwood was donated to the National Trust for Historic Preservation by French's daughter, Margaret French Cresson. Shortly thereafter, Paul Ivory took over as Administrator of the museum and residence, and he has been its guiding force for the past 30 years. Mr. Ivory employed unparalleled dedication, expertise and commitment to excellence in overseeing the facilities and programming at Chesterwood during a time when it evolved into one of the most outstanding artistic and cultural attractions in the region, and indeed in the country. Today, Chesterwood holds nearly 500 pieces of sculpture by Daniel Chester French, including molds, casts and studies--making it one of the largest collections of fine art devoted to a single American sculptor. Visitors to Chesterwood can enjoy a number of activities, including the studio where French worked and a residence that demonstrates the architectural elements of the Italian Villa and Colonial Revival styles. They can also walk through the studio garden with its flowered borders, sculptures and vistas of the Berkshire Hills. And they can view exhibits at the new Barn Gallery that bring the career and classical work of French to life even more. Among the other programs and exhibitions that have come to life under Mr. Ivory's charge are the Contemporary Sculpture at Chesterwood Series (22 years running), which allows visitors to compare diverse artistic styles and materials from both the past and the present, and the Sculpture in Residence, where visitors can become engaged in the art through a series of exhibitions and demonstrations, along with the Walking Tours of Contemporary Sculpture and the Annual Antique Car Show. Mr. Speaker, Paul Ivory has demonstrated by his many accomplishments at Chesterwood that he is a man of outstanding ability and professionalism. At the same time, he has always exhibited deep respect for all of his associates and everyone connected with Chesterwood. Under his management, patronage at Chesterwood has grown to several thousand visitors every year, who come to be informed, entertained and edified. I also think it is appropriate to note that Mr. Ivory is a decorated Viet Nam veteran who earned the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Viet Nam Service Medal, and the Republic of Viet Nam Campaign Ribbon with Device. I am proud to honor Mr. Ivory today and to express appreciation on behalf of myself and the western Massachusetts community in recognizing his accomplishments as Administrator of Chesterwood.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by returning the thanks that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the subcommittee has already given. I want first to thank the chairman for his cooperation in the production of what is truly a bipartisan bill. I want to thank also the very excellent work that has been done by the staffs, both the majority staff, so ably led by Valerie Baldwin, and our minority staff, Tom Forhan from the minority, and my own personal staff, Suzanne DuMont. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that America will find no difference between the majority and the minority in our support for the men and women who protect America. So I endorse the comments that have been made along those lines by the chairman. This bill was reported out before the terrible events of last week, but includes help on the course the President of the United States set in America's fight against international terrorism. Many Members know that many of our problems with military facilities are with those facilities overseas. It is always easier to get the required resources at home. Troops and their families serving at our bases in foreign countries are more easily forgotten. We have railheads that can barely be used to move equipment, vehicle maintenance shops smaller than the vehicles they are supposed to support, and housing so poor that, for the sake of their families, members of the armed services are reluctant to reenlist. This bill provides $500 million more than the President requested earlier this year and, obviously, before the events of September 11. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the committee have already added to the President's requested projects that are badly needed in the Middle East, Europe and the Far Pacific. We have added, for instance, for separate projects a total of more than $5 million for two special forces training ranges in the Pacific which will be used to train our troops, our grounds troops, the Marines and the Army, for urban combat. We have added more than $5 million for an Air Force facility in Turkey, and there is another $12 million for replacing the barracks in Korea. Those are some of the kinds of examples of foreign places where the facilities are particularly inadequate. But what we have been able to do within the allocation is just a small step in the right direction. We have many serious problems with our facilities overseas that affect not only the quality of life for our troops and their families, but our military readiness as well. We all have a responsibility to work together to correct this grim situation. The report for this bill begins with a declaration of the committee support for our national efforts to recover from and respond to the terrorist attacks. We may have our differences on a few matters, but on this we are standing together. We need this bill to continue our efforts, to give our support to the men and women who are protecting us in the military. I urge the Members to support the bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, every member of this house understands that the airline industry has been devastated by the terrorism of September 11th. We must provide help to the airline industry. I am sure we will do that today. This bill today aids the airline companies and by all accounts they need aid. United, American, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways are laying off 20-25% of their workforces and cutting 25% of their routes. But this bill provides no parallel aid for the nearly 100,000 direct employees who are losing their jobs. Furthermore, this bill does not even contemplate the spinoff losses of jobs in the travel and tourism industry, the hotels and restaurants, the resorts and travel services. This is a severe inequity. Beyond that, this bill does absolutely nothing to assure the American public that they can travel safely in this new world that the terrorism of September 11th has imposed on us all. Yesterday, in a joint hearing, the Senate and House Transportation Subcommittees on Appropriations heard powerful testimony by the FAA, GAO, and Inspector General documenting the utterly porous security systems operated by the airlines. Both the GAO and IG have extensively tested the security systems and found that screeners frequently fail to detect guns, knives, and other threats at security check points. The IG repeatedly breached secure areas in a large percentage of their tests at major airports. Once they entered secure areas, they could easily board aircraft. Why are the breaches of the security system so easy? The GAO and IG cite: low wages and benefits of security personnel; little or no training of screeners; weak to no criminal checks on screeners; no uniform standards for screening; very rapid turnover (from 80% to over 200%). In other word these are largely dead end jobs. DEAD END JOBS protecting the security of American travelers. This bill does nothing to correct the obvious error of placing airline companies in a double conflict of interest that the present system creates. First, spending the necessary money to provide the security that Americans must have comes from the airline's bottom line. Second, proper screening requires time and causes longer waits in line. But Americans will not return to the airways unless they are convinced that travel is safe. So, we must professionalize the airport security system with the ultimate responsibility for that security system firmly federalized. In conclusion, neither the plight of employees of airlines and the related travel and tourism industry nor the necessary security of the American public when they fly is considered in this bill. Both will have to be addressed very soon. But today, we have a bill that deals with an important part of the airline industry problem. I urge this House to do that much, but then come back and finish the job before we adjourn this session of Congress.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this bill today aids the airline companies that were devastated by the terrorism of September 11: United, American, Delta, Northwest, and U.S. Air, and the others who on average have announced a 20 to 25 percent reduction in employees, and cutting 25 percent, on average, of routes. By all accounts, they need the aid. But the airline industry is not solely these largest of the airline corporations. This bill provides no parallel aid for the nearly 100,000 direct employees of those companies who are losing their jobs, and this bill does not even contemplate the spin-off losses of jobs in the travel/tourism industry, the hotels and resorts, the restaurants, and travel services. That is a severe inequity. Beyond that, this bill does absolutely nothing to assure the American public that they can travel safely in the new world that has followed September 11. Yesterday, the joint subcommittees of the Committee of Appropriations, the joint Senate and House subcommittees, held a hearing and heard powerful testimony from the FAA, the GAO, the IG, which documented the utterly porous security systems operated by the airlines. They have found that the screeners frequently fail to detect guns, knives, and other threats; that they have been able to repeatedly to breach the secure areas in a large percentage of the airports, and once they had breached the secure areas, could enter easily aboard aircraft. Mr. Speaker, why is it that these breaches of security systems are so easy? The IG and the GAO cite low wages and low benefits of the employees, little or no training, weak and no criminal investigations of the screeners, no uniform standards for screening. In other words, they are largely dead-end jobs providing security. We must come back to this bill, even though I am going to support the legislation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America was assaulted by a carefully planned and executed campaign of terrorism. My deepest sympathies go to those who have been touched by this tragedy, the victims and their families, and they include victims and families from my district and my State of Massachusetts. My heartfelt thanks go to the medical personnel, firefighters, policemen, policewomen, and volunteers who have selflessly answered the call. We are forever indebted to those heroic rescue workers who have risked and given their lives in search of additional victims. All of us pray that additional survivors will be rescued from the devastation, and we must be certain that all the needed resources are available to do that. But today we must also look toward the future. We must ensure the safety of our citizens, the primary goal of both military and civilian components of our government. I support the actions already taken by the President to secure the Nation and provide disaster relief. We must mete out punishment for the perpetrators of this attack. Our response must be decisive but carefully calculated. One critical goal of American force and foreign policy must be to mobilize other nations to join together with us to crack down on terrorism with new determination, and we must overhaul our airport security and surveillance procedures so yesterday's disaster cannot happen again.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us requires only a 10 percent increase in fleet fuel efficiency by model year 2007; but, by 2010, it would save half a million barrels of oil a day, reduce our oil imports by 5 percent, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 100 million tons each year. But there is an even better reason to do this. Oil is the least abundant of all of our fossil fuels. All of it will be gone from this world before the end of this century if we and our fellow men continue to burn it at low efficiency. What then will we use for our industry, for the chemicals, clothing, construction materials, for every product used in our lives that is manufactured from polymers? It is in our national interests to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it is a matter of national security that we conserve our most important industrial feedstock. The National Academy of Sciences report released this week tells us the technology already exists to take this modest step. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's consideration.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. Mr. Chairman, to address the serious shortage of suitable housing for frail, low-income seniors, the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD bill included authorizing language to provide a pilot program for up to three grants for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial property into assisted living facilities for the elderly. Unfortunately, in that year the appropriation language did not allow HUD to issue a NOFA to implement the authorizing language. In fiscal year 2001, the necessary appropriation language was included in the VA-HUD bill, and $7.5 million of Section 202 funds were made available to provide for the pilot program of grants for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial property into assisted living facilities. Yet, upon issuance of the NOFA, HUD rejected all applications for these grants. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today has again appropriated funds for the conversion of eligible assisted living projects. I am concerned that HUD will continue to ignore congressional mandates on this issue, and I would ask the chairman if he would work with me in conference to correct this problem so that we can expedite the previously authorized pilot program for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial property into assisted living facilities for the elderly.

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, on January 13 of this year, a 7.6 Richter magnitude earthquake hit El Salvador. It was followed 1 month later on February 13 by a quake that measured 6.6 on the Richter scale. The combined devastation included 1,200 people killed and more than $2 billion in damage. Approximately 175,000 homes lie anywhere between severe damage and utter rubble, leaving 15 percent of the population of the country without habitable homes; homeless. Now, the gentlewoman's amendment will add $250 million in disaster relief to the promised $100 million in the bill. This is really a very modest sum. The $100 million in the bill is a small sum; even with the 250 added, it would be a modest sum, particularly when we consider America's recent involvement in El Salvador. During the 1980s, there was an 11-year period when more than 75,000 people lost their lives in El Salvador's civil war and at least 20 percent of the population went into exile. Nearly three-quarters of a million of those exilees are in the United States, many of them citizens, and others very close to citizenship. So we have a large Salvadoran population in the United States. The U.S. Congress helped to fuel this devastation by $1 billion over those years in military aid, mostly to the military government in El Salvador, which helped to lead to the devastation. In addition, there was a good deal of other aid. Total U.S. aid was nearly $300 million per year other than the military assistance; $300 million per year for 11 years in that Nation. So indeed, the $100 million for this disaster is a very modest sum, and even with the $250 million added, it is still a modest sum. I had the opportunity to visit El Salvador with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and there is some reluctance in making the argument on this, because I know how hard he works, and I know he views this as a serious matter. But we had an opportunity to see villages and towns that had the worst of the destruction near the epicenter, the capital city, the large capital city was not much affected. We saw communities of 10,000 and 20,000 where virtually every home was so severely damaged that it was not habitable. We visited a large town where the hospital was so severely damaged that the operating room was out in the front yard in the patio under a tent. So there is no question about the need. The increased U.S. funding is needed to ensure that aid reaches the places of greatest need. The best disaster relief work is being done by local municipalities in combination with churches and grass-roots groups and NGOs. Our disaster aid agency, USAID, can help to address this by delivering assistance through the nongovernmental channels and using the aid process to support decentralization and the development of municipal governments there. Mr. Chairman, the disaster has ravaged our neighbor, El Salvador. It is critically important that we help the people of El Salvador rebuild their lives. The money promised in this bill is a step in the right direction, but the amendment that has been offered by the gentlewoman from California is needed. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, much is in dispute about this whole issue of what to do in Colombia, but I do not think anyone can dispute that there is no visible evidence that the human rights situation in Colombia has improved since Congress approved last year's mostly military aid package, and I think that should indicate to us that we ought to think about what we are doing. With the indulgence of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), I had an opportunity to visit Colombia about 4 months ago with a number of Members of this body, and we had an opportunity to talk with a number of different people in the government in Bogota, but then also visited as much as we could in the short period of time on the front lines of the areas in the Colombian civil war, particularly in Putumayo Province, and a couple of other provinces in the south of the country. Now, I believe that President Pastrana and the defense minister are genuinely looking for an acceptable way to end this long conflict. Some elements of the military certainly are in collaboration with the right- wing paramilitaries, and I suspect doing so in defiance of President Pastrana. I really do not believe that he is in any way encouraging them. In fact, the tensions are clearly obvious within the military in Colombia, from what I could see of the visit. The Department of Defense has discharged whole units where there is evidence of collaboration; and that, of course, is part of the tension. But I think that our heavy use of military aid to the suspect Colombian military drives the United States' policy into the pattern of the El Salvador example from a decade and more ago, a period of time when year after year we were spending on an average of $400 million or more year to the Salvadoran military, which was directly involved in the worst civil and human rights abuses in El Salvador, including the infamous killing of Catholic nuns, who, of course, were in sympathy with the plight of the Salvadoran people. Now, in my view, the Salvadoran example provides some example for the sides in Colombia to use. Ten years ago, the two sides in the civil war in El Salvador realized that they were simply killing the very best young people from both sides and that it was disastrous for everyone there, and so they sat down together to create a new future for El Salvador. And a version of that, it seems to me, is the way that this craziness in Colombia has got to end. I think the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) provides a message. It would send a message that the purely military solution, in this case in Colombia, is a dead-end solution for Colombia and that it is really time to try something else. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, suggested, or pointed out, that this message is a blunt message; and it is, because it cuts $100 from the $676 million assigned for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. But the administration can take that money from the military side, from the military side in Colombia, not from the civil police, not from economic aid there or in the other nations of Ecuador and Peru and Brazil, if that is where it is otherwise intended to go. There must be a better way to do this. It is time to try something else than the failing effort to impose a purely military solution on the long-standing, nearly 30-year civil war that is going on in Colombia. Therefore, with a slight bit of ambivalence, I started here ambivalently, therefore I am supporting and commending the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Michigan for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the Reverend Royal J. Gardner, who on June 7, 2001, celebrated his 50th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood. Since 1989, Reverend Gardner has faithfully served as the parochial vicar of Sacred Heart Parish in Pittsfield, MA. Reverend Gardner continues to have unwavering dedication and complete devotion to the many communities and thousands of families he has served over the years. I am proud to know of the accomplishments of Reverend Gardner over the last 50 years and wish him many more years of service. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the community services of Rev. Royal J. Gardner. I am including for the Congressional Record a copy of a recent article that appeared in the Berkshire Eagle on June 16, 2001, that details his extraordinary career. Sacred Heart Vicar Celebrates 50 Years Pittsfield.--The Rev. Royal J. Gardner, parochial vicar of Sacred Heart Parish, celebrated the 50th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood June 7. A commemoration of the event took place June 10, on the 50th anniversary of his first Mass. The Mass at Sacred Heart was concelebrated by Gardner and several visiting priests. Approximately 400 friends and parishioners attended a reception that followed in the school hall. Gardner was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., on April 28, 1924 to Royal C. Gardner and Beatrice Dwyer Gardner Furer. He was educated at St. Mark's Grammar School and St. Augustine's High School in Brooklyn. He graduated from Providence (R.I.) College in 1945 and began his study for the priesthood at the Dominican House of Studies in Springfield, Ky., the St. Joseph Dominican House of Philosophy in Somerset, Ohio, and the Dominican House School of Theology in Washington, D.C. He was ordained a priest in the Dominican Order on June 7, 1951, at St. Dominican's Church in Washington by auxiliary Bishop John McNamara. Gardner's first assignment was to St. Vincent Ferrer Church in New York City. He then became dean of admissions at Providence College, a position he held from 1955 to 1968. He served as a retreat director at the St. Stephen Dominican Retreat House in Dover. He was assistant to the Dominican provincial of St. Joseph's Province in New York City from 1974 to 1980. In 1989, Gardner, wishing to return to parish work, was incardinated by the Rev. Joseph Maguire, bishop of Springfield. Incardination is the process by which priests from one diocese are accepted into another diocese for service. Gardner spent several months at St. Joseph's in Pittsfield before he was assigned to Sacred Heart as parochial vicar in September 1989. Because he is not yet ready to retire from the active priesthood, at the end of June he will move to St. Teresa's Church to assist the Rev. John Varley. Gardner has traveled widely in the past and has assumed the responsibility of directing the gardening on the church's ground over the years.