[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  KING HOLIDAY AND SERVICE ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, the Senate will now turn 
to the consideration of H.R. 1933, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1933) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday Commission, to 
     extend such Commission, and to support the planning and 
     performance of national service opportunities in conjunction 
     with the Federal legal holiday honoring the birthday of 
     Martin Luther King, Jr.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, my colleague and friend of the civil 
rights movement, Representative John Lewis, and I originally introduced 
S. 774 and H.R. 1933 on April 3, 1993, the day before the 25th 
anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
  This past weekend, I found myself remembering those tragic days 
because of the death of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. One of the mental 
photographs of Jacqueline that comes back to me-- and I am sure so many 
of us--in vivid detail is her comforting Coretta King at Martin's 
funeral. Widow comforting widow, helping to weather the storm, helping 
to carry the burden. Coretta once suggested she could not have made it 
through those days without Jacqueline.
  Mr. President, I also remember a night in the mid-1950's when my wife 
and I drove Martin and Coretta King from Baltimore to Washington after 
Martin had sharply challenged the National Black Fraternity for 
spending more money on its weekend convention than the whole annual 
budget of the NAACP.
  Sitting with my wife in the back seat, Coretta told of her recurring 
nightmare that at the end of the road in the civil rights struggle, 
Martin would be killed. He leaned back from the front seat and said she 
should dream instead of all the things they could do while he was 
alive. Then he added, ``I didn't ask for this. I was asked and said 
yes.'' He hummed a line from the spiritual ``The Lord Asked Me and My 
Soul Said Yes.''
  Now, 25 years after Coretta's nightmare became a reality and some 10 
years since Martin's birthday became a national holiday, what should we 
do in remembrance of Martin? How should we say yes?
  We should certainly celebrate, reflect on, and never forget the 
victories won. While Martin Luther King was alive, the right to vote 
was won in one-third of our country and segregation laws were struck 
down everywhere in the land. In measuring those years, I want to say 
that these were not little victories which the civil rights movement 
won. As Senator Cohen suggested the other day and Senator Bradley has 
so passionately argued for some time, we still have much work to do in 
the area of race relations as we head into the 21st century.
  We have not done so well in moving forward in our own time in the 
last quarter of a century since Martin Luther King was taken from us. 
But let us not demean history case by case, march by march, lunch 
counter by lunch counter, jail by jail, martyr by martyr, Executive 
order by Executive order, and, finally, law by law. The civil rights 
movement made history and ended undemocratic laws and practices in one-
third of our country.
  But it is not enough to remember victories won. Martin would want us 
to raise our sights to the work yet to be done.

  In his sermon the night before he was killed, he said he had been to 
the mountain top and had seen the promised land and might not reach it 
himself. He was no longer afraid of any man, or death itself, he said. 
And he was ready to climb the whole range of mountains still ahead.
  When he died, he was just trying to move up the next steep slope--the 
mountain of poverty in our cities, the mountain of class mixed with 
race, the mountain faced by a generation of young people denied hope 
and opportunity. Martin would have found it a scandal to let another 
generation of young Americans fall into a vicious cycle of poverty, 
drugs, crime, prison, even death. He could hardly have imagined that an 
estimated 100,000 American children would bring guns to school each 
day. Martin would not have accepted the epidemic of crime and senseless 
youth violence that is spreading across cities, suburbs, and rural 
communities in our country. A recent Business Week article estimated 
crime and violence are costing us $425 billion a year. But the 
spiritual cost is much higher and much more important. Think of the 
terrible impact on a classroom when a student pulled out a gun and 
killed a fellow student. That happened in a small town in Pennsylvania.
  Given a challenge like that, nothing would have aroused Martin more, 
even angered Martin more than people supposedly honoring him by sitting 
home watching TV or sleeping late. The King holiday, should be a day on 
not a day off; a day of action, not apathy; a day of responding to 
community needs, not a day of rest. Martin would want the holiday 
honoring his birthday to be a day of reflection not recreation, service 
not shopping, a day not only of words but of deeds.
  As President Clinton suggested at my alma mater Howard University, 
Martin Luther King lived and died in the fight to remind us of what is 
the greatest struggle in our lives in the present day--how to close the 
gap between our words and our deeds. The Martin I knew would not just 
be talking about battling violence, crime, drugs, and other problems 
plaguing our society. He would get out in the community, get his hands 
dirty, tackle the problems head on. When we honor him, we should do no 
less.
  Mr. President, that is what this bill before us today does. It 
answers the questions ``How do we say yes?'' and ``How do we honor 
Martin Luther King?'' That is really the heart of this debate that I am 
having with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina: should 
America honor Martin Luther King and, if so, how?
  The King Holiday and Service Act of 1993, as H.R. 1933, passed the 
House of Representatives by unanimous consent under specialty rules on 
March 15.
  The King Commission has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both 
Chambers. The King Commission was first established on August 27, 1984, 
by President Reagan. Under the leadership of President Bush, the Senate 
voted on May 2, 1989, to extend the Holiday Commission and authorized 5 
years of appropriations at $300,000 per year. The Senate passed the 
measure 90 to 7 and it was signed into law on May 17, 1989, 90 to 7.
  This year there were 105 cosponsors of H.R. 1933 in the House, 
representing Members on both sides of the aisle. In the Senate, we have 
17 bipartisan cosponsors including 6 members of the Judiciary 
Committee, which has jurisdiction.
  On April 13, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing chaired by 
my able colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun on S. 774. The Judiciary 
Committee marked up the bill H.R. 1933 as it was passed by the House 
and reported the bill out without objection by voice vote on May 5.
  The legislation has the strong support of President Clinton, Jack 
Kemp, Coretta Scott King, numerous mayors and Governors, a lot of 
religious, labor, civil rights, and educational organizations ranging 
from the AFL-CIO to the Mennonite Central Committee and the National 
Catholic Educational Association.
  I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a letter from 
President Clinton indicating his support for the Commission's 
reauthorization.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, January 17, 1994.
     Hon. Harris Wofford,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Harris: Thank you for your letter on the King Holiday 
     and the problem of youth violence.
       Our nation is indebted to you for your groundbreaking work 
     in advancing the case of civil rights both as an advisor to 
     Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and as a special assistant to 
     President Kennedy. I know that your ideas about the power of 
     nonviolent citizen action had a real impact on Dr. King's 
     thinking and strategy and you, in turn, know of the impact 
     that Dr. King had on my life and on my own call to public 
     service.
       I have reviewed the legislation that you and Representative 
     Lewis have introduced to extend the work of the King Holiday 
     Commission to promote community service as part of both the 
     Holiday observance and its activities with young people 
     throughout the year. Given the close association you and John 
     had with Dr. King, it seems only fitting that the two of you 
     should lead this effort together.
       I fully support the reauthorization of the King Holiday 
     Commission and look forward to working with you on this 
     legislation. Making the promotion of community service part 
     of the Commission's work is an appropriate way to honor Dr. 
     King, and is in keeping with the Commission's effort to 
     combat youth violence.
       Dr. King lived and died in the fight to remind us of what 
     is the greatest struggle in our lives, in the present day--
     how to close the gap between our words and our deeds, between 
     where we ware as a society and where we would like to be. 
     Your legislation will help us close this gap and ensure that 
     we continue to remember Dr. King not only by what we say, but 
     by what we do.
       I thank you for your work for the King holiday and our 
     nation's youth.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. WOFFORD. I ask unanimous consent to put in the Record a 
remarkable speech given the day before yesterday at Drexel University 
by Teresa Heinz, whose husband's seat I have the honor to fill.
  There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                  Leadership in the Post-Political Age

                           (By Teresa Heinz)

       Thank you. When Bob Hall asked me to speak to you today on 
     the subject of leadership, I was delighted, but a bit 
     concerned. Talking to this group about leadership is like 
     talking to Steven Spielberg about movie-making.
       Nonetheless, this is precisely the short of group with whom 
     I would want to discuss this subject. I have become a 
     proponent in recent years of a certain kind of leadership, 
     one which places greater responsibility on people like you 
     and me. It is not only fitting that we discuss this, but 
     essential.
       Leadership is a subject that inspires strong opinions, 
     especially among people who are leaders themselves. Garry 
     Wills writes in his new book Certain Trumpets: The Call of 
     Leaders, ``Tell me who your admired leaders are, and you have 
     bared your soul.''
       Necessity has forced me in recent years to search my soul 
     for a definition of leadership. I have always been a leader, 
     ever since I was a young girl. That's the product, I think, 
     of always having had a strong sense of place and self. But my 
     understanding of leadership has been refined by three recent 
     challenges.
       The first was my husband's death in 1991, which forced me 
     to reflect deeply on the qualities that made him so very 
     special as a leader. ``Real leadership,'' he once said, 
     ``involves persuading people to do something now that will 
     bear fruit in the future.''
       John appended that definition with a cautionary note. ``Too 
     many people,'' he said, ``live only in the short term. 
     Instead of clearly seeing what is demanded of us, instead of 
     understanding and learning from the past, instead of charting 
     a new course for tomorrow, too many Americans are allowing 
     themselves to be manipulated into quarreling with the past 
     and denying the realities of the present.''
       He spoke those words in 1979, and they ring even more true 
     today. But to his definition of leadership, I would add the 
     qualities that made him so special. These were very much 
     qualities of the human spirit--joy, optimism, curiosity, a 
     willingness to take risks, a love of people, a belief that he 
     could make the world a better place and the gritty 
     determination to make it happen. These, too, are the 
     hallmarks of leadership, and they are qualities we all can 
     share.
       The second circumstance that challenged me to think of 
     leadership in new ways came when I succeeded John as chairman 
     of the Howard Heinz Endowment and conceptualized what has 
     come to be known as the Heinz Family Philanthropies--a 
     unifying identify for our foundations that protects the 
     unique leadership of each. As a public figure, John was and 
     had to be avowedly discrete about his philanthropy. He never 
     wanted to risk the perception that he was using philanthropy 
     for personal political gain. As a private citizen, I faced 
     no such peril, and so I felt an obligation to explore 
     opportunities for transforming the traditionally quiet 
     world of philanthropy into a dynamic force for change.
       The third recent influence on my perception of leadership 
     came when I was asked last year to seek election to the 
     Senate. That forced me to consider where I, as a leader, 
     could be most effective. And what I realized--no offense to 
     my husband or to Harris Wofford--looking back at John's 
     special qualities and how anyone can share them . . . and 
     looking at the many models for non-political leadership I was 
     unearthing through our philanthropy . . . what I realized was 
     that leadership is not restricted to Washington . . . that 
     often the most effective leadership of our times is coming 
     not from government but from deep within the vast American 
     heartland, from private citizens in business, in non-profits, 
     in academia, in communities. I realized that my opportunity 
     as a leader, and thus my responsibility, was to foster and to 
     nurture that leadership, to harness and bring to light the 
     leadership of others.
       The temptation to seek public office was great, of course. 
     If you're like me and most Americans, there are times--when 
     you read the paper or watch the news--that you find yourself 
     thinking you could do better, or pining for the leaders of 
     yesteryear. Where, you wonder, is this generation's 
     Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy or King? So great is our thirst 
     for the leadership of the past that even Richard Nixon, who 
     was in many ways one of our strongest presidents, has been 
     reborn, by all accounts the patron saint of misunderstood 
     greatness.
       As I peered down the gauntlet of electoral politics, I 
     reached this conclusion: We may yet see the emergence of 
     other Martin Luther Kings, other non-politician leaders, and 
     in all likelihood that is the prototype for leaders of the 
     future. The days of the great politicians, though, of the 
     great men guiding us from the White House toward even grander 
     visions, are at an end.
       This is not, as is so fashionable to believe, the fault 
     solely of the present generation of politicians. The 
     politicians haven't changed so much as we--and the power of 
     their offices--have. To quote Garry Wills again, ``We do not 
     lack leaders . . . We lack sufficient followers . . . Calls 
     are always going down into the vasty deep; but what spirits 
     will respond?''
       Our spirits today seem resistant to political followership. 
     I do not believe we have outgrown history's need for great 
     leaders, just that politics has lost its capacity to provide 
     them. We are living in a time that, for lack of a better 
     term, can be called post-political.
       By that, I do not mean that politics is a thing of the 
     past. Rather, I mean that government, at least in this 
     country, has lost its primacy as a venue for real leadership. 
     Further, I mean that our leadership needs have changed, in a 
     way not well-suited to our present notions of politics and 
     government. To understand how, we must first understand what 
     has happened to politics and to us, so let me briefly touch 
     upon what I see as the most significant changes. In no 
     particular order, they are:
       First, we as a society have grown more cynical and lost 
     faith with our politicians. Television is partly to blame--it 
     has made us shallowly familiar with our politicians and them 
     with us, and this kind of thirty-second-deep familiarity does 
     breed contempt. But the cause is less important now than the 
     result, which is a wholesale disregard for politics and its 
     practitioners. Lately this has manifested itself in a mass 
     conversion to the politics of reform--from term limits to a 
     desire to kick the bums out, as long as it's the other guy's 
     bum. As The New York Times noted recently, suddenly everyone 
     is a reformer.
       This iconoclasm may be long overdue, but its practitioners 
     generally offer little in the way of inspiration. We know 
     what they are against, rarely what, if anything, they are 
     for. Personally I support reform, but policitians can not 
     repurchase the loyalty of the American people by foregoing 
     lobbyist-sponsored junkets. That is not leadership. Great 
     leaders understand that they are also symbols; what do the 
     iconoclasts symbolize but a repudiation of themselves?
       Second, we suffer from the rise of a political class. 
     Ironically, so many politicians have become reformist 
     converts because they see it as the ticket to their 
     professional futures. Thus does the status quo perpetuate 
     itself. And like any professional class, politicians are prey 
     to the belief that they alone are the experts of their 
     craft--a deleterious notion in a representative democracy.
       Political careerism inflicts other damage. Politicians are 
     all too human, and like most professionals they worry about 
     furthering their careers or just keeping their jobs. Some of 
     you may know that I recently spoke out against assault 
     weapons. One of the reasons that I stepped forward on this 
     issue is that I could, while so many politicians would not. 
     Cowed by powerful interest groups, career politicians must be 
     driven by the anger of the people to take a stand. Ours is a 
     time in which the alleged leaders are very often the 
     followers.
       Third, we suffer from stifling deficits. There is little 
     money, and even less political will, for experimentation, let 
     alone the sweeping visions of the past.
       Fourth, we suffer from government made moribund by 
     bureaucracy. There are many good people in the public sector, 
     but their sheer numbers overwhelm us. Bureaucrats are prone 
     to what Daniel Boorstin calls the bureaucratic fallacy, which 
     he summarizes by quoting the sign over a French civil 
     servant's desk. Translated, it read, ``Never do anything for 
     the first time.'' What hope do bureaucrats offer for the 
     innovation and willingness to take risks that are so inherent 
     to real leadership?
       Fifth, we suffer from a diminished sense of citizenship. 
     Harry Boyte, a senior fellow at the Hubert H. Humphrey 
     Institute of Public Affairs, has written that, ``From a 
     nation of citizens, we have become a nation of clients.'' He 
     quotes a politician who concluded after years of public 
     service that government today ``largely means the delivery of 
     benefits to the appreciative, paid for by the oblivious.''
       I think that's optimistic. More aptly, today government 
     means the delivery of benefits to the entitled, paid for by 
     the overburdened. Too often, we as a society believe 
     government owes us something, but we don't want to pay for 
     it. How distant seems John F. Kennedy's appeal for a 
     citizenry mindful of what it can do for its country.
       As a whole, these changes have produced a political system 
     disengaged from the people, and a people disengaged from 
     issues and politics. We are left with a political system that 
     cannot lead and a public that can not and will not follow.
       Something deeply structural is at work here, too, and not 
     just in the United States. It has to do with the still-
     unfolding communications revolution and the birth of what has 
     been called the global village. The homogenization of culture 
     at a global level has produced a backlash at the local level. 
     Around the world we see societies and their sub-groups 
     growing increasingly defensive of their cultures, their 
     political and economic systems--in short, of their 
     identities.
       Ironically, the very globalization that so threatens these 
     groups confers upon them greater power. This is what John 
     Naisbitt calls the ``global paradox''--how our global union 
     empowers ever smaller forces of division. Thus is it that the 
     dictators of Haiti learn from the warlords of Somalia the art 
     of using the global theater to hold the world at bay.
       This transfer of power to smaller, often non-traditional 
     groups has its dangers. As we look around the world today, we 
     are tempted to repeat the adage, ``Everything old is new 
     again.'' Countries in Europe and Africa are disintegrating 
     back to old borders. Ancient hatreds drench the earth with 
     blood in Bosnia and Rwanda. Racial antagonism is resurgent in 
     America. We wonder whether the model for our future will be 
     the peace process in the Middle East and the breathtaking 
     liberation of South Africa, or the earthshaking rage of Los 
     Angeles.
       But the truth is, none of this . . . none of it . . . is 
     merely a revival of things old. It embodies a struggle toward 
     something new, new insights into human affairs, a new form of 
     organizing principle. It is a terribly difficult transition. 
     At times it seems as though some vengeful god has unleashed 
     upon us the dogs of chaos. The disorder and uncertainty of 
     our present circumstances are new and frightening, and they 
     tempt us to revert to the defining identities of the past--
     the old leaders, the old values, the old customs, and yes, 
     sometimes, the old hatreds.
       The traditional role of government in times such as these 
     has been to suppress chaos, which is precisely what we expect 
     of it. But I suggest that that is both impossible and unwise. 
     The Chinese have two symbols to express the idea of crisis--
     one means danger, the other means opportunity. This neatly 
     captures our dilemma: We are at a fracture point in human 
     history, where either we will break terribly with the present 
     and revert to the past, or we will seize the opportunity we 
     have been given to seek the new.
       The entire world, it seems to me, is struggling with a 
     question that it must answer and can not avoid forever. That 
     question has to do with community: Just what is it? Is it 
     nation? Which nation? Is it history? Whose history? Is it 
     neighborhood? Is it ethnic group? Is it like-mindedness? 
     Those questions cannot be answered on behalf of anyone 
     anymore. The world has changed too much, power has shifted 
     too irrevocably, for us to put the populist genie back in 
     the bottle.
       I offer as a guide a thought from Aristotle: ``A state is 
     not a mere society, having a common place,'' he 
     wrote.``Political society exits for the sake of noble 
     actions, and not for mere companionship.'' That idea suggests 
     a foundation for communities of the future. We are not here 
     to keep each other company--we are here to help each other.
       There is an analogy for our situation in the natural world. 
     Studies of the environment have revealed that the apparent 
     chaos of nature belies an underlying order. Almost 
     everything, we have learned, is connected, into what students 
     of biodiversity like to call ``the web of life.''
       We have also learned that the web's very existence depends 
     on the complexity that we perceive as chaos. That chaos is 
     nature's creative heartbeat, its source of evolution and 
     adaptation, without which it will die.
       In post-political America, the task of government is not to 
     suppress the emergent chaos in human affairs, but to manage 
     it, to direct it, and to keep it from disintegrating into 
     violence. It is to resist the forces of extremism whose 
     discomfort with uncertainty leads them to cry out for their 
     idea of order and to drive a bloody stake between themselves 
     and others.
       The role of our political leaders is to safeguard the new 
     source of real leadership in America. No longer vested in 
     government, that leadership is springing forth from us, and 
     from people nothing like us, our common bond a willingness to 
     respond to crisis and the vision to pursue opportunity. In 
     our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our workplaces, in 
     these places leadership is happening. It is there that 
     leaders still step forward willing to take risks, risks tiny 
     in global terms, but huge for the individuals--who 
     nonetheless dare to experiment, to innovate, to step outside 
     the confines of present circumstances and create a new and 
     better future.
       This is the premise of the work we are doing at the Heinz 
     philanthropies. We seek to support these new leaders and the 
     programs they invent or that we invent with them, and to 
     unite them in partnership with a government so desperately in 
     need of their insight and courage.
       As some of you may know, the Heinz Family Foundation, one 
     of the Heinz Family Philanthropies. recently created the 
     Heinz Awards, which every year will recognize five 
     individuals for a combination of vision and achievement in 
     the areas of the arts, technology and economic growth, public 
     policy, the environment, and what I call the human condition. 
     The Awards, each of which is for $250,000, will draw 
     attention to men and women who are proving that individual 
     really can make a difference. By their actions, these modern 
     heroes personify a breed of citizenship as promising and 
     enduring as any our country has ever known . . .  one driven 
     by the same spirit as drove my husband, not just in politics, 
     but in all walks of life.
       When I referred to you as leaders at the opening of these 
     remarks, it was not to compliment you. If anything, it was to 
     challenge you. To you and others like you . . . to all 
     Americans on whom life has smiled by giving them power, or 
     money, or prestige, or insight, or intellect, or charisma, or 
     talent, or health, or energy . . . to all such Americans has 
     fallen the responsibility for guiding this country into the 
     next century.
       I spoke a moment ago of the web of life. America, if you 
     think about it, is itself a great web--a web of diverse 
     peoples . . . drawn from different ethnic backgrounds, races, 
     religions, nationalities, and convictions . . . woven 
     together by shared dreams and aspirations, and yes, by shared 
     tragedies and hardships.
       These are the silvery threads that draw us together into a 
     great nation. This is the source of the creativity that in 
     the past has made us--and more than ever in the future will 
     continue to make us--a model for the world.
       The web pulsates with the creative energy of countless men 
     and women who are awakening to their power and 
     responsibilities as leaders. The scale of their deeds may 
     sometimes seem small, buy by their spirit they fuel our 
     future. The moment in our history has arrived when we must 
     stop awaiting the return of the leaders of the past, and must 
     embrace instead the heroes within, the hope for tomorrow.
       The people in this room are leaders. Embrace your 
     leadership. Encourage the leadership of others. Our future is 
     truly in our hands.
       I want to conclude by expressing again my appreciation for 
     this opportunity to speak to you. The University honors me 
     with its degree, and you honor me even more by your audience. 
     Thank you.

  Mr. WOFFORD. Mrs. Heinz in accepting an honorary degree urged that we 
look not to elected officials so much, but to look even more to 
leadership coming from the private and the independent sector, look to 
the Martin Luther Kings of the future, she said, rather than to any of 
us political leaders who hold public office. That is another reason to 
promote and strengthen the Commission and the holiday, to help produce 
the future Martin Luther King, in the large scale or in the small 
scale, in the Nation at large or in each community.
  This modest but important bill reauthorizes the Martin Luther King 
Holiday Commission and is designed to help transform the observance of 
Martin King's birthday into a national day of service and action. It is 
designed to remember Martin the way he would have liked: a day that 
reflects his proposition that ``everybody can be great because 
everybody can serve.'' A day that brings the greatness out in people--
especially the young--by bringing them together to make a difference in 
their communities, fixing parks, tutoring children, rebuilding schools, 
ending poverty, feeding the hungry, immunizing children, housing the 
homeless.
  Our legislation enables the current King Commission to organize the 
holiday as a fitting tribute to Martin Luther King, a day of 
interracial cooperation, antiyouth violence efforts, and community 
service. Linking the King Commission chaired by Coretta Scott King with 
the Corporation on National and Community Service, the bill will 
encourage service opportunities across the Nation in conjunction with 
the holiday.
  Mr. President, today the King Commission is on the front lines 
helping young people say no to crime, drugs, prejudice, and violence, 
and say yes to nonviolence and community service. The Commission has 
formed partnerships with law enforcement agencies, business and 
professional organizations, including the National Basketball 
Association, the National Football League, religious organizations, 
schools and families to sponsor Youth Against Violence symposiums. 
These symposiums have taught over 40,000 at-risk young people Dr. 
King's message of nonviolence and helped them get the resources to 
solve problems and turn their lives around. The Commission's good work 
in this area needs to be strengthened.
  We can put more cops on the street, and with our tough new crime 
bill, we will. We can crack down on career criminals. And we should. We 
can provide more opportunities for young people to get the education 
and training they need to be productive, law-abiding citizens. And we 
must. But at some point we all know there is a limit to what Government 
alone can do to respond. Changing a culture of violence and 
permissiveness will take all of us, as citizens and parents. And that 
is what this holiday ought to be a about. And that is part of what this 
Commission has been doing since its inception.
  Mr. President, this bill accounts for $300,000 next year out of the 
$1.5 trillion budget. It is not as important as comprehensive health 
care reform that the Labor and Human Resources Committee, on which I am 
serving, is marking up this week. It is not welfare reform. It is not 
legislation that will change our national unemployment system into a 
reemployment system, as we have done in Pennsylvania. Nor is it as 
significant as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or any other 
number of vital measures this Congress needs to craft and pass in 
nonpartisan fashion this year. But this is a good bill, for a good 
Commission that with very modest resources has labored to keep Martin 
Luther King's dream alive.

  It is good that all 50 States have finally adopted the national 
holiday. But this milestone does not mean the Commission's work is 
done. On the contrary, I think some of the most important work is just 
beginning.
  Imagine what a million Americans could do in just 1 day of community 
service. And think what they could do if they carried on that service 
throughout the whole year working together. Some people have said we do 
not need a Federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King. Some have 
said it is time to sunset the King Commission and no longer try to 
organize the holiday to be something more than a day of rest and 
recreation or to get more Americans to observe the holiday--only 18 
percent of businesses do for example. I disagree on both counts. We 
need this Commission to work actively to make that day a sunrise of 
service, of building common ground, of reflecting on how far we have 
come and how far we still must travel.
  A little more than a quarter century after Martin's violent death, I 
believe great days can be ahead--if we learn to seize those days. If we 
do it together. If we recognize that to do our duty we must be more 
inventive and go forth to the front lines of our society, to make a 
reality of the American dream of equal opportunity for all.
  Today this body has an opportunity to show the American people that 
we can come together on both sides of the aisle. Today, as we hear new 
voices of hatred and prejudice and see too many acts of racism and 
bigotry and ethnic cleansing, we have a chance to promote racial 
harmony. Together, as crime grips our society, we as Democrats and 
Republicans have a chance to say ``no'' to violence and ``yes'' to 
nonviolence. Today we have a chance to reaffirm Martin's proposition 
that we must meet hate with love and that we are at our best when we 
are serving others--the drum major instinct that he called for. Today 
as public servants of all stripes and ideologies, we have a chance to 
appeal to the better angels of our nature and remember a man and a 
movement that represented the best of what America stands for.
  As Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and 
now codirector of Empower America, said so eloquently at our recent 
hearing:

       This bill is not a right-left issue, or a conservative-
     liberal issue * * *. It is an issue for all Americans devoted 
     to the principles and ideals for which Martin Luther King 
     gave his life and fought.

  Words--Martin's words--will always be part of what we celebrate. Next 
to Lincoln's, his are probably the most moving words in American 
history. But let us remember Martin most of all by his deeds--and honor 
him by our own.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms].
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the distinguished manager on the other side mentioned 
to me that the able Senator from Illinois would like to speak next, and 
I am perfectly willing to do that. As a matter of fact, it will be an 
accommodation to me because I need to meet with some foreign visitors 
in connection with my responsibilities as ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. But I would like to spend a couple of minutes 
first while I offer an amendment to the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1738

 (Purpose: To restore the original purpose of the Martin Luther King, 
Jr., Holiday Commission by ensuring that only private funds are used by 
                            the Commission)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1738.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act no 
     federal funds shall be used for the purpose of funding the 
     Martin Luther King Federal Holiday Commission.

  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is to be utilized under the 
first-degree amendment before it is in order to offer the second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I can solve that by asking for the yeas, 
and nays, can I not?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is right.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it 
is so ordered. The first amendment will be temporarily set aside.


                Amendment No. 1739 to Amendment No. 1738

 (Purpose: To restore the original purpose of the Martin Luther King, 
Jr., Holiday Commission by ensuring that only private funds are used by 
                            the Commission)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The second-degree amendment therefore is 
an amendment in the first degree. The second-degree amendment cannot be 
offered as a first-degree amendment unless the first-degree amendment 
is temporarily laid aside.
  So the second amendment is the amendment in the first degree, may the 
Chair ask?
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to offer this second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request? Hearing 
no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1739 to amendment numbered 1738.

       In the pending amendment strike all after the word ``Sec.'' 
     and insert: ``1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
     Act no Federal funds shall be used for the purpose of funding 
     the Martin Luther King Federal Holiday Commission. This 
     section shall become effective 1 day after the date of 
     enactment.''

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I ask what the time situation is?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina has 
remaining on debate 28 minutes and 36 seconds. That is on the bill. He 
has half of the 2 hours on the first amendment that he has introduced. 
He has half of the 1 hour on the second-degree amendment that he has 
introduced.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The other side has 15 minutes remaining 
for debate.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, is it in order for me to yield 15 minutes 
of the time I otherwise would take on the opening statement to the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is in order for the Senator to do so, 
if he so wishes.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that be done so she will have 30 
minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the 
Senator from North Carolina needed time in order to attend a meeting. I 
am prepared to defer and allow him that time at this point so as not to 
interfere with the rest of his schedule.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has been yielded 
15 minutes by the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I yield whatever time the Senator from Illinois needs 
from leadership time which she vitally needs for debate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has the floor. 
If she wishes to utilize it, she has 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the 
pending amendments.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 1933, the 
King Holiday and Service Act of 1993. H.R. 1933 will extend the life of 
the Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday Commission, which was 
created in 1984 to assist in the celebration of the first King Federal 
holiday. The Commission is entrusted with keeping Dr. King's dream 
alive by making his birthday celebration more than just another day off 
work, but instead a day for all people to come together and serve their 
communities.
  Mr. President, last week we observed the 40th anniversary of the 
Supreme Court's decision in Brown versus the Board of Education. Many 
Senators, including myself, offered tributes to the Court's opinion in 
Brown, which started this Nation down the long and troubled road toward 
equal opportunity for all citizens, regardless of race or religion or 
gender or national origin. But as important as the Supreme Court's 
decision in Brown was--and make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the 
Brown decision was arguably the most important Supreme Court decision 
in the 20th century--it did not in and of itself end segregation and 
discrimination in America. In the years following Brown, the entire 
South still lived under the domain of Jim Crow. Blacks were still 
relegated to the back of the bus, were still banned from the white 
lunch counters, and were still not allowed to use the same bathrooms or 
water fountains as whites. Interracial marriage was prohibited--by 
law--in many States, and any black who attempted to vote was quite 
literally risking his or her life.
  For the Brown decision could not, with the stroke of a single pen, 
change the attitudes and beliefs of the American people. The Supreme 
Court could not, with one decision or two decisions or ten decisions, 
wipe out the troubled legacy of discrimination in America. The Supreme 
Court could not even guarantee that the actual plaintiffs in Brown 
would ever attend desegregated schools. The fact is, they never did, 
nor did thousands of children that came after them. Wiping out 
discrimination, and ensuring equality for all Americans, would require 
far more than the directives of the Highest Court in this land. And 
when, in 1956, the young minister of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., organized a boycott of the segregated bus 
system in Montgomery, AL, America had found the leadership, the 
answers, that even the Supreme Court could not provide.
  America has changed a great deal in the days since Martin Luther King 
first sprung to national prominence. The laws that created a dual 
society in so many parts of this land have been struck down. 
Segregation in public bathrooms and lunch counters has ended, and 
official barriers to the right to vote have been rejected.
  And so many of these changes can be directly attributed to the work 
of Dr. King. His life was dedicated to fighting for justice and 
equality not just for African-Americans or the poor, but for all 
Americans. He shared with us his dream of a society where the doors of 
opportunity and prosperity were closed to no one, and he challenged us 
to make that dream a reality.

  Dr. King also taught us that our diversity was our strength, not our 
weakness. He stood and worked against prejudice, discrimination, and 
hate in all its forms. And in the end, he gave us our most potent 
weapon with which to fight the evils of poverty, prejudice, and 
discrimination: a belief in the inherent goodness and dignity of every 
human being. As Dr. King told us so many years ago:

       Everyone can be great because everyone can serve. You don't 
     have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to 
     make your subject and verb agree to serve * * * you only need 
     a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. And you can 
     be a servant.

  But as far as we have come since Martin Luther King's tragic death, 
it is clear that we have a long way to go. In many ways, since the 
gains made by the Brown decision and by the work of Dr. King, our 
Nation is becoming more and more separate, and less and less equal. Dr. 
King would find it a scandal that so many young people are still born 
into poverty, still receive an inadequate education, and still have no 
chance of achieving the American dream. He certainly would not believe 
that juvenile arrests for murder increased by 85 percent in a recent 5-
year period, and that approximately 135,000 students now carry guns to 
school every day. He would be distressed that hate crimes--crimes 
committed against a victim chosen solely due to their race, religion, 
gender, sexual orientation, or country of national origin--are on the 
rise in cities throughout the United States. And, 40 years after Brown 
versus the Board of Education, he would be troubled that, in my 
hometown of Chicago, more than 90 percent of black students still 
attend either mostly black or predominately minority schools.
  Mr. President, there have been some who say it is time to sunset the 
King Commission, that--with the holiday recognized in 49 States, and in 
New Hampshire as Civil Rights Day, the work of the King Commission is 
complete. In fact, just the opposite is true. As the facts I have cited 
above demonstrate, the message of Dr. King--his message of love, of 
nonviolence, of unity among the races, and of hope--is perhaps more 
relevant and more necessary today than ever.
  Since its inception, the Martin Luther King Federal Holiday 
Commission has striven to keep Dr. King's dream alive. Centered around 
the themes of ``remember, celebrate, and act,'' the Commission has 
worked year round to ensure that the holiday lives up to its full 
potential as a day of community service and interracial cooperation. 
Working with only modest appropriations and a paid staf of two, the 
Commission has responded to literally thousands of requests for 
information and distributed millions of pieces of literature on the 
subject of Dr. King and the day set aside to honor him.
  In a time when more and more people in our society see fit to resolve 
the most trivial of conflicts by picking up a gun or a knife, the 
Commission has worked to train people--particularly young people--in 
the principles of nonviolence. At a time when many communities in our 
Nation are falling apart, it has encouraged people of all ages to honor 
Dr. King by becoming involved in community service and making the 
neighborhoods where they live a better place. At a time when division 
among the races seems to be increasing, rather than decreasing, at a 
time when a particularly hateful speech sparked an official 
condemnation from the U.S. Senate, it has promoted unity and 
understanding among the races. Activities sponsored by the Commission 
range from youth against violence seminars to ``I have a dream'' youth 
assemblies to the recent 30th anniversary March on Washington.
  The work of the Commission is only beginning. Recent surveys show 
that only 18 percent of Fortune 500 companies recognize Dr. King's 
Holiday. Many people, who know nothing more about the holiday than the 
controversy surrounding its creation, mistakenly assume the day is a 
celebration only for African-Americans. That misinterpretation is a 
great disservice to a man who devoted his life to uniting people of all 
races. And there are young people who are completely unaware of the 
contributions, the sacrifices, that Dr. King made for this country.
  Furthermore, merely establishing a King holiday in every State is not 
enough. For if we allow this holiday to become nothing more than 
another day of rest and relaxation, of sleeping later and bargain 
sales, we have failed. We have failed the memory of Dr. King, and we 
have failed the potential within each of us--the potential to achieve 
greatness through service.
  That is why passage of H.R. 1933 is so important. The bill will 
reauthorize the King Commission for a period of 5 more years, and give 
it sufficient funds to continue its good work. In addition, the 
legislation will broaden the mandate of the King Commission to include 
the promotion of community services activities. The bill will give the 
Commission on National and Community Service [CNCS], which was created 
by the national service bill, the authority to make grants to pay for 
the Federal share of planning and implementing services activities in 
conjunction with the Federal holiday. The service activities will be 
consistent with the life and teachings of Dr. King, such as cooperation 
and understanding among racial groups and nonviolent conflict 
resolution. Federal grants can comprise no more than 30 percent of the 
cost of such events.
  Think about this for a minute--a holiday dedicated to the proposition 
that each of us can make a difference. One day out of the year when 
people of all races can come together and make their communities, and 
consequently our Nation, a better place to live. The possibilities are 
as endless as our needs. The day could be used to donate blood or 
volunteer at a hospital, to clean up a park or plant flowers in an 
inner-city neighborhood, to volunteer for the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts 
or the Special Olympics, to tutor children or to work with those who 
have AIDS. An investment of $300,000 is certainly money well spent if 
it can inspire 10 or 20 million Americans put aside 1 day toward these 
activities.
  I have heard some argue that Federal commissions in general are 
unnecessary, that in this time of budget deficits we should simply 
eliminate all nonessential services. I am ready to debate that issue 
should it be raised in the future. But let us not single out a 
commission that has encouraged more than 4 million youth to sign a 
pledge to reject violence, that has encouraged millions of people, 
young and old alike, to devote their precious time to helping those 
less fortunate, and has worked to unite individuals of all races. Don't 
single out a commission that has been praised by the chairman of the 
House subcommittee with oversight responsibilities as an example of an 
organization that has carried out its mission admirably with only a 
modest amount of Federal funds.
  I had the privilege of chairing a Judiciary Committee hearing on this 
legislation at which a number of distinguished witnesses appeared in 
support of the bill, among them were Coretta Scott King, Jack Kemp, 
former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and my colleague 
from Pennsylvania, Senator Wofford. But the most impressive panel--and 
I do not say this in any way to impugn my colleague--was a panel of 
young people whose lives have been touched by the work of the 
Commission. Three students from the University of North Carolina--one 
white, one black, and one Indian--testified together in a touching 
display of harmony among the races. But it was a young woman, Ms. Amy 
Cammack, from Harrisburg, PA, who really struck me. Ms. Cammack is in 
the eleventh grade at Bishop McDevitt High School in Pennsylvania, yet 
she could teach those of us in the Senate a great deal. I would like to 
quote today from Ms. Cammack's testimony.
  ``How interesting,'' Ms. Cammack said:

       That those in power here in Washington don't see the 
     potential to help end violence, encourage community service 
     and advocate for cultural diversity through one of the 
     greatest leaders of this century.

  The King Holiday Commission, she continued:

       May be the only Federal entity in existence today whose 
     function it is to spread a message of peace, tolerance and 
     understanding--three critical keys to ending violence in our 
     communities.

  Ms. Cammack concluded her testimony with the following:

       What I fail to realize is the objective of closing the King 
     Holiday Commission. To save money? As the adults, those in 
     powerful positions, you always say to young people like me, 
     you are the future. Well, we need help. The King Holiday 
     Commission provides help. I think it can do more.

  Well, I agree with Ms. Cammack. The King Holiday Commission can do 
more, if we give it the chance. It can promote harmony and 
understanding among the races. It can inspire people to give to their 
communities, to make the world in which we live a better place, even if 
only for a day.
  The Washington Post, in an editorial endorsing the legislation we are 
considering here today, recounted a story Dr. King told the night 
before he was gunned down in Memphis in 1968, the story of the Good 
Samaritan who finally helps to stop the injured man after so many had 
passed him by, refusing to lend a hand. I would like to repeat that 
story here today. Dr. King said that maybe those people who did not 
stop to help the injured man were too busy, or they felt it better to 
deal with the underlying causes of the problem than to get bogged down 
with the individual. Or maybe they thought the individual was faking 
it, or they were scared and thought, in the words of one who refused to 
help, ``If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?''
  But as Dr. King went on to explain, that question, the question of 
``What will happen to me,'' was the wrong one to ask. The Good 
Samaritan, the one who finally helped the injured man, knew that the 
right question was ``If I do not stop to help this man, what will 
happen to him?'' The Good Samaritan, Dr. King said, decided not to be 
compassionate by proxy.
  And so it is with the legislation before us today. We can refuse to 
reauthorize the King Commission for a period of 5 years, or we can 
refuse to give the Commission the adequate funds to complete its 
mission, because we are worried about what might happen to us if we do. 
Or we can choose the courageous path, the path of the Good Samaritan, 
and realize that the proper question to ask is what will happen to 
those in need if we do not. What will happen to the potential within 
each of us, the potential to achieve greatness through service? That, 
Mr. President, is a question I hope we do not have to answer.
  Dr. King, the man who taught this Nation to work for justice through 
nonviolent means, died a violent death in 1968, long before he could 
see this Nation achieve the promise of which he knew it was capable. It 
is up to the rest of us--all of us--to complete his agenda.
  Throughout this debate I have stressed the importance of the 
Commission's role in distributing information on Dr. King's life, in 
teaching those in the younger generations, who were born after 1968 
what he meant to our Nation. And that importance can never be 
understated. America must never forget the meaning of Dr. King life, 
for if we forget the tragic lessons of our history are we are doomed to 
repeat them. We must continue to recognize the achievements of Dr. 
King, and to build on those achievements as a way of ensuring that his 
dream will one day become reality. Dr. King brought out the best in 
people. The day set aside to honor him should do no less The King 
Federal Holiday Commission will ensure that the holiday does just that.
  I know that the President is an advocate and devotee of history. In 
that vein, there is always the old expression, ``Those who do not know 
history are bound to repeat its mistakes.'' I am compelled to remember 
the fact that for many of the young people whose futures are so much at 
stake--the Amy Cammacks of the world--for them, what transpired in this 
country in the civil rights movement and post civil rights movement, 
during that whole turbulent period of our history, it is exactly that; 
it is ancient history to some of them. I remember speaking at a high 
school, and a young, black female student said to me, ``Dr. King, he 
was assassinated, right?'' Well, it occurred to me that she was not yet 
born when all of this happened.
  It seems to me that we have an obligation, not only to teach the 
young people the lessons all of us learned from that history, but to 
show them the way and to give them examples of the positive values that 
came out of our coming together as a nation, of the positive values of 
our cultural and racial and ethnic diversity, of the positive values of 
learning to resolve disputes without violence, of the positive values 
of pursuing peace. And that is a mission that this Commission has and 
the mission that this Commission has so ably fulfilled in its brief 
existence. It reaches out to young people. Again, you and I may have a 
vivid, personal memory of Dr. King and what all of the issues were. To 
young people born in 1972, who may serve as pages in this Chamber, who 
are in school now themselves, this is something that could have 
occurred in 1857, as far as they know, because it is not something that 
is real to them, unless we, the adults make it real.
  The King Holiday Commission seeks to continue to carry the message 
forward, to take the history lessons to the young people, to give them, 
by way of example, the notion that in nonviolence, in interracial 
cooperation, by coming together, we can build a stronger America for 
them to inherit in the 21st century. That is what this Commission has 
done and I daresay has ably done.
  Mr. President, the amendment seeks to strike the funding from the 
bill. In that regard, I think that the intent, obviously, is to destroy 
the work of this Commission. I point out that in the time of its 
existence, Mr. President, this Commission has received high marks from 
everyone who has looked at the operations of the Commission. There was 
a study by Arthur Anderson with regard to this Commission, as well as 
the House Oversight Subcommittee that looked into the operation of this 
Commission. The chairman of that oversight committee called this 
Commission an example ``of an organization that has carried out its 
mission admirably, with only a modest amount of Federal funds.''
  Mr. President, I will conclude at this point and reserve the 
remainder of my time for later.
  I think it is appropriate to hear the amendment first to be able to 
react and respond to the amendment. But I say to you that the 
importance of this Commission cannot be overstated. I think the 
importance of this Commission was most aptly spelled out by the high 
school student.
  It seems to me that for every Member of this Chamber, carrying forth 
positive values and teaching our young people positive values and 
positive ways of interacting with each other is a small investment in 
our present and their future. I encourage the support of this body for 
this legislation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I inquire about the time situation? 
While I was in my meeting I noticed that there was a rather long quorum 
call. Was that equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The quorum call was 
charged on the first-degree amendment. The Senator still has 30 minutes 
on the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. How much time do I have remaining, if any, on the opening 
statement--on the bill itself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining on the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. I have 13\1/2\ ? That many?
  Suppose I begin to use time on the first-degree amendment, if that is 
all right with the Parliamentarian.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina will be 
notified that it will take consent.
  Mr. HELMS. I am sorry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina will be 
advised that it will take unanimous consent to do that.
  Mr. HELMS. All right, since I am the only one here except for the 
distinguished occupant of the chair, I ask unanimous consent that that 
be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have no illusions whatsoever about the 
probable outcome of my effort to persuade the Senate to give some 
genuine thought to the proposed extension of the Martin Luther King 
Federal Holiday Commission, H.R. 1933.
  The political reality is that the King Commission extension will be 
approved again just as it has been before, despite the past assurances 
that there would be--without fail--a sunset of Federal subsidies for 
this outfit.
  I remember in 1989 Sam Nunn, Senator Nunn, engaged in a colloquy with 
the then Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Sanford on ending the King 
Commission in 5 years: Oh, no question about it, both of them said it 
will end in 1994. I saw Senator Nunn this morning at the White House 
and he said, ``That is my recollection and I thought it was going to be 
sunsetted.''
  I do not know how Senator Nunn is going to vote but I know how 
difficult it is, politically, for some Senators to look reality in the 
face. The King Holiday Commission, despite the very clear promises of 
its creators, is a case study of why Federal handouts do not work, and 
why an irresponsible Congress--and no other phrase fits--why an 
irresponsible Congress has saddled the American people with a $4.5 
trillion debt.
  I have already heard it said this is just a little bit of money, we 
will not miss it. But it is sort of like Everett Dirksen said: A 
million dollars here, a million dollars there and pretty soon you're 
talking about real money.
  Anyhow, Madam President, we are going to hear many emotional speeches 
about Dr. King and his life and how he should receive official 
devotion--official governmental devotion--that no other man or woman in 
the history of the United States has received: Not Washington, not 
Jefferson, not Lincoln, not Truman, not Eisenhower, not Kennedy.
  Senators will be emotional, as they make these speeches. But the 
trouble is that their speeches have nothing whatsoever to do with the 
real issue. The issue is that the Congress has failed in its duty to 
spend the people's money wisely and Congress has failed to live up to 
the commitments, the flat-out commitments that were made in 1984, in 
1986, in 1989, and again in 1994 regarding the King Holiday Commission.
  In the beginning the King Commission was a temporary Commission. It 
was not supposed to last long. And it was supported by private 
donations.
  Today, there are proposals being made to make the Martin Luther King 
Commission a permanent--a permanent--drain on the American taxpayers. 
Senator Moseley-Braun has a bill to do just that--make it permanent. 
But let us review just a little bit of history. A lot of Senators do 
not want to hear about history, but it is good for them to hear it 
occasionally.
  The Martin Luther King Holiday Commission was established in 1984 
after Congress had determined, what? Here is what:

       It is appropriate for the Federal Government to coordinate 
     efforts with Americans of diverse background and with private 
     organizations in the first observance of the holiday.

  You notice I stressed ``first.'' Anybody's reading of that statute 
leads to the conclusion that the Commission was intended to exist only 
long enough to set up the first King holiday.
  That occurred 10 years ago on January 19, 1984. Almost every Member 
of Congress who supported the creation of the King Commission 
stressed--no, emphasized--first, the point that the Commission would 
exist for only 20 months and, second, that no Federal taxpayer funds 
would ever, ever be used.
  So what is new about such promises, Madam President? I will tell you 
what is new. Nothing. We hear that sort of thing all the time. Here we 
are today facing a lot of empty rhetoric so we can ignore the real 
point.
  Madam President, I recall what one Congressman, a supporter of this 
bill, Mr. Addabbo, said back in 1984. To be honest about it, I did not 
recall until I did a little bit of research. Here is what he said:

       The maintenance and expenditures of the Commission are to 
     be made from privately donated funds and, therefore, 
     represent no further burden on the Federal budget.

  I am sure he was sincere, but he was sincerely wrong on the facts as 
later events have proved.
  Then there was Mr. Courter of New Jersey who said on the floor of the 
House of Representatives:

       I would emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this Commission will 
     be functioning using private donations, private money. Dr. 
     Martin Luther King would have had it that way, I am quite 
     sure, if he could express his own desire.

  OK. Then in 1986, Madam President, we heard arguments that the 
Commission still needed just a few more years to complete the job it 
had started 2 years before. So Congress, which dearly loves to spend 
other people's money, extended the Commission's life for 3 more years 
saying, ``of course, no more extensions after that.''
  Once again, we heard proponents at that time stress over and over and 
over and over again that the Martin Luther King Commission would 
continue at that point to operate with private funds. No Federal money. 
None, none, none.
  Senator Bob Dole stood right here where I am standing now and said:

       It should be emphasized that no Federal money is 
     appropriated for the Commission. Rather, it operates entirely 
     on donated funds. Under the extension legislation, the 
     Commission would continue to be funded from these sources, 
     [meaning private sources]. Expanding the size of the 
     Commission should also enhance its ability to raise private 
     sector funds.

  I am not sure, but I think that Bob Dole has done more than probably 
anybody else to help raise private funds for the Martin Luther King 
project. You know what he believes. I just read it.
  Now, Madam President, get this: At the time of the second extension 
of the life of the King Commission in 1989, the Martin Luther King 
Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta already was raising 
between $20 million and $30 million a year privately. But many of the 
same folks did not want to have to raise funds for the King Holiday 
Commission as well, so they called Washington and said send us the 
taxpayers' money. So in 1989, they came back to Congress but this time 
with outstretched hands: ``Gimme, gimme, gimme.'' Although the King 
Center and the King Commission are not legally bound, they share many 
of the same officials and directors.
  In 1989, they demanded $1.5 million for 5 years ``to encourage all 
States to establish the King holiday as a paid holiday for employees'' 
and ``to learn how to bring protest campaigns.'' Oh, the plot thickens 
now, does it not?
  Madam President, prior to the debate in 1989 on federally funding the 
King Commission, I had meeting after meeting after meeting with the 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Mitchell, the distinguished minority 
leader, Mr. Dole, and the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Nunn]. In each meeting, I said, ``Fellas, tell me why the American 
taxpayers should be forced to provide funds to institutionalize and 
maintain the King holiday--we do not do it for Washington's birthday or 
anybody else?''
  Every Senator emphasized then that he or she did not want the 
Commission ever to become a never-ending burden on the taxpayers. So, 
here we are setting it up again for another extension and more millions 
in Federal dollars.
  In 1989 they said 5 years would do the job, whatever the job was--
which by the way, I had a little difficulty finding out. Everything in 
its legislative history indicates the King Commission was supposed to 
go out of business. The Commission's supporters said it over and over 
and over again in 1986 and in 1989: ``After this extension, the King 
Commission--is over, it's gone.''
  Let me offer just one example of the stated attitude of most Senators 
when the most recent King Commission debate occurred on this floor on 
May 2, 1989. I am going to read an exchange which you can read in the 
Congressional Record.
  It is an exchange between former Senator Terry Sanford, of North 
Carolina, and the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], both 
of whom I referred to a moment ago. Both of them were principal 
cosponsors of the 1989 extension act. Here is what Senator Sanford said 
to Senator Nunn regarding the King Holiday Commission:

       Senator Sanford. When we vote for this bill, we are, in 
     effect, saying we think the Federal Government's help in 
     getting it [the King Commission] started will come to an end 
     in 5 years and we do not anticipate this is going to be a 
     permanent Federal agency.
       Senator Nunn. That is my own view. As a matter of fact, if 
     we define the success of the Commission, it would be that we 
     would not need permanent appropriated funds to remind us each 
     year and that it [the King Holiday] would then be a part of 
     America's way of life.
       Senator Sanford. I agree, and I would like the Record to 
     reflect this exchange, that it is not our intention to make 
     this a permanent matter but to make it simply a period of 
     time to get the whole concept established.
       Senator Nunn. That is exactly right. I do not speak for 
     anyone else, but this is my view.

  Madam President, it is a little discouraging, for those of us who 
believe in responsible government, to look back at the abundance of 
statements by a multitude of people, with everybody assuring that this 
was the last extension, that this would be the end of it, et cetera, et 
cetera, et cetera--as the King of Siam was so fond of saying--only to 
find that such assurances were empty. But when the roll was called 
right here, the Senators marched in, they paid their respects to Dr. 
King, and made sure that the television cameras were focused on them so 
that everybody back home could know that they were voting for Dr. King. 
They were not voting for Dr. King, they were voting for a bunch of 
people who were--and are--confused about what to do with the taxpayers' 
money. And I will get to that in a minute.
  Senators voted in 1989 to spend $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money 
that none of them, to my knowledge, was willing to spend from their own 
pockets if they were asked to finance the project. Now, there may be 
some few in the Senate who could say, ``Well, I contribute $15 myself 
personally'' or $25 or whatever. But I say, Madam President, and I say 
it in connection with so much of the spending that goes on in this 
Senate and in the House of Representatives, it is always easy to be 
charitable when somebody else is signing the check. It is so easy to 
give away somebody else's money. What you are doing is you are giving 
away money of the young people in the next generation. It is the 
biggest cop-out in history.
  Anyhow, here we are, it is 1994 and the song remains the same. Even 
though the King holiday is now observed in all 50 States--which was 
supposedly the original goal back when they started this organization--
the King Commission is back yet again seeking another couple of million 
dollars more in handouts and another 5- year extension of time for the 
life of the Commission. And you can bet that 5 years from now it will 
be the same old story again. They will be back saying we need $2 
million more and another 5 years of time.

  Now then, let us look at the situation as it really is. The 
Commission's affiliate, not legally but spiritually, is the King Center 
in Atlanta, I am told. It is the number one tourist attraction in the 
State of Georgia. And that King Center receives more than $20 million a 
year in private donations which they have persuaded the major 
corporations of America to contribute--$20 million.
  But that is not enough. They want to continue to reach into the 
taxpayers' pockets and continue to use Federal employees at Federal 
expense to do the Commission's work. How many Senators know how many 
Federal employees are assigned to that project full time? How much do 
they make?
  Well, we are going to put an audit by the world famous Arthur 
Andersen & Co. in the Record sometime during this debate that details 
how many and how much.
  I just wonder how many Senators know, however, that when the 
Commission was formed, the Congress--the Congress--generously provided 
the Commission with Federal workers ``on loan.'' In fact, the 
Commission's executive director, a fellow named Lloyd Davis, has been 
``on loan'' from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 
more than 10 years.
  Now, this is not going to show up in the media. The newspapers are 
not going to use it, and it will be the best kept secret on television 
tonight. But this guy Lloyd Davis has been on the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development payroll for 10 years, but for the entire 10 years 
he has been working down there in Atlanta and drawing over $80,000 from 
the Federal Government, meaning the taxpayers. That fact is not 
included as part of this bill or any of the previous Commission 
legislation.
  Now, add to that, if you will, the Federal office space ``on loan'' 
to the Commission in both Atlanta and here in Washington. So the total 
expenditures for the King project vastly exceed the $2 million actually 
called for in this bill.
  Now, that is what I think we ought to put a stop to. We have been 
told time and time again that every extension is the last extension and 
after this there will be no more sticking hands in the taxpayers' 
pockets to fund the Commission.
  Well, let us mean it this time, Senators. When you come to the floor 
tomorrow to vote on the amendments, do what the Senate committed itself 
to do not just this year, but in years past as well.
  I think it would do well to read Mrs. Coretta Scott King's own words 
as to the goals of the King Commission. The following is from a letter 
addressed by Mrs. King to the former Senator from Georgia, Mr. Mack 
Mattingly, dated January 20, 1986. Mrs. King said:

       As you know, it is one thing to work for passage of Federal 
     and State legislation for such a holiday, another to mobilize 
     support to set the standards for an appropriate observance 
     and provide direction for citizen involvement and still 
     another to finally institutionalize the holiday and maintain 
     it.

  All right, this lady actually makes most of my argument for doing 
away with the Commission. The Government, after all, achieved Mrs. 
King's first goal when Ronald Reagan signed the King holiday into law.
  The Government achieved Mrs. King's second goal when it created the 
King Commission, ostensibly for a limited period of time.
  By the way, if you read page 105 of the Commission's own report for 
1993, you will see what a mendacious man Ronald Reagan was. The 
Commission on that page quotes from Julian Bond's 1993 King Holiday 
speech in Jersey City, NJ. Let me read the report:

       Julian Bond, former member of Georgia's House and Senate, 
     urged about 3,500 students at a Jersey City State College 
     celebration to make good on King's dream by finishing the 
     march the clergyman started toward civil rights. When King 
     was assassinated in Memphis in 1968, Bond said, he never 
     ``imagined support for civil rights would die as well.'' But, 
     Bond asserted, ``by conservative policies and appointments, 
     President Bush and his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, have 
     weakened the rights of blacks and the public has done nothing 
     to stop it.''

  Well, that is certainly a nonpartisan statement at taxpayers' 
expense.
  The point is this. Not one other Federal holiday receives the kind of 
treatment the King holiday receives--as I said, not Washington's 
Birthday, not Veteran's Day, not Memorial Day, not the 4th of July. On 
rare occasions, temporary Federal commissions are formed to honor 
events that will not recur, such as the Bicentennial of the 
Constitution and the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Christopher 
Columbus. As important as those events are, they should not be funded 
by taxpayers, and I have never voted for one of them.
  Imagine, if you will, the reaction, if the Federal Government should 
use the taxpayers' money to tell the American people how to observe 
Thanksgiving or Christmas--I can hear the ACLU now--much less if the 
Government mandated what teachings are appropriate. I wonder how ruddy 
the complexion of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts would be 
if that sort of thing happened.
  Of course, it is not going to happen. The American Civil Liberties 
Union and its acolytes would descend on the Capitol like a swarm of 
locusts if the Government even got remotely involved in Christmas or 
Thanksgiving, much less Independence Day, but the same standard does 
not apply to this King holiday. In the Commission's own report, they 
say that they and they alone will decide how the King holiday is going 
to be observed. If you do not believe me, go across the Potomac and ask 
the service chiefs at the Pentagon.
  As I said earlier, I do not doubt that the supporters of this 
legislation are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong, in my judgment. 
They should take a look at what is happening at the King Commission. 
They should learn why the King Commission has become just another 
Federal bureaucracy, plodding along with no real purpose or 
accountability to the taxpayers.
  Madam President, let us take a look at the oversight report of the 
accounting firm of Arthur Andersen & Co., which concludes that the King 
Commission is badly managed and poorly led.
  I am reading verbatim from the Arthur Andersen & Co.'s summary report 
on the King Commission itself. ``Our observations''--meaning the CPA 
firm--``Commissioners are high level government and private officials--
Significant credibility but limited availability.''
  Do you know how that is translated? That means they do not even show 
up for the meetings--``Limited availability.'' That is right. They do 
not show up.
  ``Lack of Commissioner, or Commissioner Representative, attendance at 
Board Meetings.'' Their charter stipulates at least two board meetings 
a year but the commissioners--as I say, do not even show up.
  Then Arthur Andersen and Co. says the Board's various committees also 
do not meet regularly. Commissioners do not exercise oversight over the 
committees as the charter requires them to do. The executive director 
is the guy ``forced to assume the responsibilities normally reserved 
for the board.'' That is a quote from Arthur Andersen & Co.'s report.
  Then under ``Current situation,'' the report says ``Nine separate 
`program-oriented' Committees exist, but do not function. Confusion 
exists regarding governance, roles, purpose, and authorized activities 
of Committees.''
  If anybody wants to examine that report they will find many examples 
of lax control over who signs the commission's checks, and lax control 
over cash receipts and petty cash.
  This is the CPA, not Jesse Helms, who cited these irregularities.
  According to the June 1993 maintenance request, the Commission's 
Atlanta office building is in a shambles. Nobody is looking after it. 
Nobody gets anything fixed. There is an animal control problem, a 
possum has been living in the ground floor, trash is not picked up 
regularly, and Commission records have been destroyed by water pouring 
through a leaky roof. The King Commission's own Director of Operations 
reports that the back porch floor boards ``are a hazard, especially to 
the children should they need to use it as an emergency exit.''
  Madam President, I do know not whether these problems have been 
fixed. The King Commission says it has fixed its accounting problem, 
although you cannot find that information in the 1993 report. But 
problems have built up over the years, and they bring into question 
whether we should continue to use the taxpayers' money to fund this or 
any other holiday commission at any time in the future.
  Finally, Madam President, is the money in this bill, $2 million over 
a period of 5 years, better spent on a King parade in Atlanta, or 
having the members of the King Commission staff travel first class 
every time they take an airline journey, or repairing the Commission's 
Atlanta office? Or is it better spent on the war on drugs, or cleaning 
up crime in public housing? I think any Senator going home and asked 
those two questions by his constituents would certainly respond 
affirmatively to the second question.
  But just watch when the roll is called tomorrow, and that door opens 
and the delightful little pages are holding the doors so Senators can 
gallop in at the last-minute. Watch how the Senators vote on this 
proposal to extend the life of the King Commission. And while they so 
vote, America will continue to lose the war on crime and the American 
family will continue to disappear in terms of its traditional 
priorities and principles.
  The King Commission does absolutely nothing to address America's real 
problems. The King Commission has asked for more and more of the 
taxpayers' money, and the Senate up until now has sheepishly voted to 
give the money away. And as they vote, try to keep in mind that this 
Commission was originally created to help establish the first--and only 
the first--Martin Luther King holiday. That has long since been 
accomplished. But the outstretched hands demanding millions and 
millions of the American taxpayers' money, well, Madam President, 
forgive me but I think it is shameful that those hands are still 
outstretched 10 years later. But the greatest shame is that the U.S. 
Senate continues handing over the money with scarcely a question.
  I ask unanimous consent that the report from the accounting firm of 
Arthur Andersen & Co. dated January 13, 1992, and a maintenance request 
by Mr. Al Boutin, Director of Operations at the King Commission, dated 
June 1, 1993 be placed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   The Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, Report of 
                  Management Review--January 13, 1992


                       governance and operations

  Evaluate Governance Issues (see attached detail discussion--Exhibit 
                                  III)

                         Background information

       Public Law 98-399--The Commission is created without 
     funding.
       Creation of the Corporation.
       The Extension Act--Re-establishing the Commission with 
     appropriations of $300,000 for 1990-1994.

                            Our observations

       Commissioners are high-level government and private 
     officials--Significant credibility but limited availability.
       Lack of Commissioner, or Commissioner Representative, 
     attendance at Board Meetings.
       Committees do not meet regularly and have no consistent 
     oversight by Commissioners.
       Executive Director forced to assume responsibilities 
     normally reserved for the Board.

                            Recommendations

       Establish a 5 to 7 person Operating Committee consisting of 
     Commissioners with delegated authority to act for full 
     Commission--Meet bi-monthly.
       Amend the Corporation's By-Laws to incorporate governance 
     by the Operating Committee described above.
       The Operating Committee should formulate and document the 
     express authority of the Commission/Corporation's Executive 
     Director.
       Combine governance, operations and focus of Commission and 
     Corporation in a formal, written document.

                 Perform a strategic visioning process

       Develop strategic plan--
       Revisit ``mission'' of the Commission and redefine as 
     necessary.
       Conduct visioning process--Board retreat probably required.
       Prepare specific 3 to 5 year plan.
       Assess current commission objectives--
       Define Corporation role for private sector--vs. Commission 
     role for Federal funding.
       Conclude on location of operations--Atlanta vs. Washington 
     is not working.
       Determine steps required to conform to revised vision.

                        Address operating issues

       Current situation--
       Nine separate ``program-oriented'' Committees exist.
       Confusion exists regarding governance, roles, purpose and 
     authorized activities of Committees.
       Determine committee focus and role--
       Ensure consistency with ``vision'' and strategic plan.
       Eliminate focus on ``operating'' programs--The Commission 
     should mobilize community, not operate programs on behalf of 
     the community.
       Determine location and personnel needs--
       Washington, DC, presence appears necessary--Atlanta office 
     location probably may not be.
       Personnel staffing should be consistent with strategic plan 
     and revised operations.


                     internal control environmental

       As part of every audit, Arthur Andersen & Co. considers the 
     entity's internal control structure to determine the scope of 
     our audit procedures. While we are unable to provide 
     assurances on the internal control structure as a whole, the 
     points listed below came to our attention in the September 
     30, 1991, audit that we want to make the Commissioners aware 
     of.
       Eliminate usage of corporate charge cards.
       Enhance controls over the check signing function.
       Enhance controls over the cash receipts function.
       Require that Board Minutes be signed.
       Consider employing an accountant for the Washington, D.C., 
     office.
       Segregate responsibilities in the cash disbursements 
     function.
       Consistently maintain voucher packages.
       Clarify which entity's business the Minutes represent--
     Corporation vs. Commission.
       Segregate responsibilities over the petty cash fund.


                         specific transactions

       Following is a summary of findings with respect to specific 
     transactions brought to our attention for review.
       Checks written to Lloyd Davis--We noted 3 separate checks, 
     dated January 23, 1990, for $20,000, January 25, 1990, for 
     $2,000 and August 31, 1990, for $6,000. The first two checks 
     were for transfers of funds from the Washington, D.C., 
     Corporation bank account into the Atlanta Parade Fund bank 
     account to cover expenses for the 1990 King Week Parade. Both 
     checks were promptly deposited directly into the Parade Fund 
     account. The third check was for the standard transfer of 
     funds from the Washington, D.C., account into the Atlanta 
     Corporation account. It was also promptly deposited directly 
     into the back. Checks should not have been payable to Mr. 
     Davis.
       Checks written to King Center--These were for services 
     rendered or payment of rent ($10,000 per year). Since these 
     checks were written on the Corporation bank account, no 
     violation of policy occurred. (GSA must negotiate leases paid 
     with Commission appropriations).
       Check written to Jerry Jarriels--This was for moving 
     expenses ($2,518) consistent with a written employment 
     agreement and supported by written estimate of United Van 
     Lines, which was lowest bid. Also written on Corporation bank 
     account; thus, no violation of statute.
       Check written to Freedom Trail Fund--This was to transfer a 
     $5,700 payment, received (from DOD for publications) and 
     deposited into the Corporation's bank account, over to the 
     Freedom Trail bank account. This is consistent with treatment 
     of receipts for other Freedom Trail Program publication 
     sales. (The separate Freedom Trail bank account was closed 
     when transferred to the Atlanta office.)
       Check written to Wright-Brown Electric Company--This was to 
     pay the invoice for services provided to prepare for the 
     Parade in Atlanta. Also written on the Corporation bank 
     account, thus, no violation of statute exists.
       Check written to U.S. Student Association--This was a 
     payment in accordance with a contract between the Corporation 
     and the Association, whereby the Association prepared 
     materials for symposia at universities.
       Check written to Democracy for China Fund--This was a 
     contribution given by the Corporation; thus, no violation of 
     statute exists. A detail memorandum from Lloyd Davis support 
     this $500 donation.
       Checks written to Atlanta office of Corporation--These were 
     standard transfers of funds from Washington, D.C., bank 
     account to the Atlanta bank account.
       Travel to Santa Fe Conference--Commission funds were used 
     to pay travel costs for Al Boutin's wife. When Lloyd Davis 
     became aware of this, he had Al Boutin reimburse the 
     Commission. We verified that the reimbursement occurred.
       Payments to Printing Companies--The Commission/Corporation 
     purchased printing services from B. L. Graphics and Classic 
     Press. We noted adequate supporting documentation for these 
     payments. We have not been able to verify whether a 
     ``related-parties'' relationship exists between Corporation/
     Commission officials and the two printing companies.
       1991 Prayer Breakfast Hotel Bill--Certain expenses for the 
     Washington, D.C., Grand Hyatt may have been personal expenses 
     of Ms. Madeline Lawson. This invoice could not be located, 
     and we are unable to conclude on this matter. The amounts 
     involved total $493.
                                  ____

     June 1, 1993
     To: Johnny Mack
     From : Al Boutin [King Commission Director of Operations]
     Subj: Office Maintenance
       As requested by you last week, I am writing to request that 
     the following problems at 503 Auburn Ave. be attended to as 
     soon as possible.
       1. The electrical switch (fuse) box continually trips the 
     downstairs air conditioning off.
       2. Please check out the switch box which makes a funny 
     buzzing sound and may be a fire hazard.
       2. The roof leaks and we have water damage to books, files, 
     furniture, etc.
       3. We have an animal pest control problem. Small creatures 
     are running around the drop ceiling and shifting the tile 
     creating dust on the furniture. There are a number of boards 
     missing on the siding of the house and also holes where 
     squirrels or rodents could be entering. At one time we had a 
     possum living in the downstairs drop ceiling area.
       4. The building should be sprayed for insects on a regular 
     basis.
       5. We request that trash be picked up daily and that the 
     office be cleaned once a week, i.e. the bath rooms cleaned, 
     floors mopped and vacuumed, furniture dusted and polished. 
     The trash pickup has been almost daily, however, the routine 
     cleaning has been sporadic. We would request that a day for 
     cleaning be designated so we would know when to expect the 
     service.
       6. We also noticed 3-4 wasp nets on the back porches which 
     are growing. Also the back downstairs porch has rotted wood 
     floor boards which are a hazard, especially to the children 
     should they need to use it as an emergency exit.
       Enclosed is a copy of the service agreement which covers 
     all of the above stated concerns. Thank you for your past 
     support and I would be happy to discuss the details of this 
     memorandum with you at your convenience.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, we already had some general 
discussion about the importance of this legislation. The Senator from 
North Carolina has raised a number of issues, many of which are quite 
specific, and I am afraid that there is unfortunately an awful lot of 
misleading if not inaccurate information given to the Members of the 
Senate who may be listening to this debate. So I will attempt now in 
response to go point by point to illustrate the inaccuracy of those 
comments, and the misleading nature of some of the objections that have 
been raised by the Senator from North Carolina.
  To start with one point, the Senator from North Carolina has 
essentially confused or suggested there is a connection between the 
Martin Luther King Center and the King Federal Holiday Commission.
  In the first instance, I will point out that the full name, the 
accurate name, of the Martin Luther King center is Martin Luther King 
Center for Nonviolent Social Change. I think it is important that the 
Members be aware that the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent 
Social Change is a freestanding, independent entity, separate from the 
Commission that is currently at issue with this legislation.
  Second, the Senator from North Carolina says the legislation is 
seeking a couple million more in terms of its reauthorization. In the 
first instance, we are not seeking to authorize indefinitely the King 
Federal Holiday Commission. The authorization in this legislation is 
for 5 years, and $300,000 a year for the first year of those 5 years, 
with a total appropriation of $2 million.
  With regard to this, as you are well aware, the process is such that 
we have to have legislation authorizing an appropriation first, and 
then the actual appropriation has to be appropriated by, among others, 
the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Washington. It is 
a matter that will come before the Appropriations Committee to 
determine how many dollars specifically of the amount that is 
authorized will be dedicated to this purpose. That will give not only 
the Senators who are members of the Appropriations Committee, but 
indeed the Senator from North Carolina, an opportunity to address the 
specific issue of how many dollars and what funding will be made 
available for the activities of the King Federal Holiday Commission.
  In the third instance, with regard to the activity of the Holiday 
Commission, I think it is important to focus on the fact that some of 
the opposing statements made and cited by the Senator from North 
Carolina really do not relate to the activities of this Commission. As 
Senator Wofford so eloquently pointed out in his remarks, and as I 
pointed out in my remarks earlier, the work of the Commission really is 
focused on promoting those values having to do with nonviolence, having 
to do with racial harmony, having to do with giving young people some 
sense of the history and why nonviolence is important, why racial 
harmony and cooperation is important. And some of the quotes, 
unfortunately, made by the Senator from North Carolina, I think 
obscured the mission of this Commission. It is not a function of just 
having the holiday and then forgetting about it and letting it go on a 
calendar somewhere, but rather keeping the dream alive, if you will, by 
providing a basis and providing a forum for training young people for 
the dissemination of information and about the importance of Dr. King's 
work.

  I daresay there is no one in this Chamber who would deny the 
importance of that work. In fact, I have on my desk a collection of 
speeches by the late Dr. Martin Luther King. It describes on the cover, 
``The Speeches That Changed the World.'' They did change the world and 
this country, and they have made it a better country for all Americans.
  That is an important thing to communicate as an educative, 
socializing tool to young people, many of whom were not alive when Dr. 
King was around. In fact, I asked some of our pages whether they 
remembered Dr. King, and most of them were born after Dr. King was 
assassinated. I think it is important that we communicate to this 
generation of young people why nonviolence is important, why 
interracial harmony is important, and what are the foundations of the 
movement Dr. King started not only here in America, but also for the 
rest of the world.
  The third point made by the Senator from North Carolina that I think 
is important to dispel, again, is the specific point that was made when 
he called this legislation a ``mandate.'' Madam President, nothing 
could be further from the truth. This is not a mandate. The 
dissemination of information is not a mandate; training of young people 
is not a mandate; working in the community for positive social values 
is not a mandate. No one is being forced to do anything under this 
legislation. Indeed, this legislation, by reauthorizing the work of the 
Commission, will hopefully provide the basis for increased voluntary 
activity in the community and not otherwise.
  (Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Another point the Senator from North Carolina made 
had to do with the financial and the specific operations activities of 
the Commission. He stated that this is not a vote for Dr. King or Dr. 
King's holiday, but for a bunch of people who are confused about what 
to do with taxpayer money. I daresay that in all of the reviews of the 
activities of the Commission, they have received very high marks for 
the use of both private and public funds and the operation of the 
Commission. The Arthur Andersen audit that was done of the Commission 
activity found no intentional wrongdoing or fraudulent practices. It 
recommended improvements that could strengthen the practice of the 
Commission. But then any audit conducted of any corporation could 
certainly find areas for improvement. None of us are perfect; we can 
all improve.
  This organization has done a salutary job of dispensing the trust and 
the confidence of the people--not only of the United States--who 
contribute privately to the activities the Commission has given it.
  For the record, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from two 
Members of Congress, Tom Sawyer and Ralph Regula, who serve as members 
of the board, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 1995.
     Hon. Harris Wofford,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
       Dear Senator Wofford: Recently, it has come to our 
     attention that concerns have been raised about the financial 
     operations of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday 
     Commission.
       As long-time members of the Commission, we want to put 
     those unfounded concerns to rest. The Commission, established 
     in 1984, has operated in a financially sound and responsible 
     manner. In fact, in 1991, the Commission created an 
     Operations Committee to review all aspects of the 
     Commission's internal practices. The Operations Committee was 
     composed of several distinguished Commissioners, including 
     the Honorable Judge William Sessions and the Honorable Jack 
     Kemp.
       While the Operations Committee did not find any major flaws 
     in the way the Commission carried out its responsibilities, 
     it made several recommendations on how the Commission could 
     strengthen its management practices and operational 
     procedures. The Commission also is audited annually by the 
     Arthur Anderson Company. In 1993, Arthur Anderson made 
     several recommendations on how the Commission could 
     strengthen its financial practices.
       In response to the constructive suggestions of both the 
     Operations Committee and Arthur Anderson, the Commission 
     immediately took steps to streamline its management structure 
     and ensure appropriate controls over the flow of funds.
       We are confident that the King Commission, under the able 
     leadership of Mrs. Coretta Scott King, has never engaged in 
     any practice that would suggest the misuse of funds. To the 
     contrary, the King Commission is an excellent example of an 
     organization that has carried out its mission admirably with 
     only a modest amount of federal funds.
       We urge the Senate to move expeditiously to reauthorize the 
     King Commission for five years.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas C. Sawyer,
                                               Member of Congress.
     Ralph Regula,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. They go on to say, as long-time members of the 
Commission:

       We want to put those unfounded concerns to rest.

  They are referring specifically to financial operations.

       The Commission, established in 1984, has operated in a 
     financially sound and responsible manner. In fact, in 1991, 
     the Commission created an Operations Committee to review all 
     aspects of the Commission's internal practices. The 
     Operations Committee was composed of several distinguished 
     Commissioners, including the Honorable Judge William Sessions 
     and the Honorable Jack Kemp.

  Finally--and I see my colleague from Pennsylvania, who has some 
points and observations to make in this regard--the Senator from North 
Carolina said that he thought it was ``shameful'' that we were ``still 
looking to the Federal Government for support of the work of this 
Commission.'' I think it would be shameful for us to do anything other 
than to pass this legislation and reauthorize the work of this 
Commission.
  The fact is that there are young people--and he mentioned the 
students leaving the building--that the work of this Commission has 
touched in a positive way. Our own colleague, Bill Bradley, just last 
week gave a major address on the cost of violence in this society.
  It seems to me that by making a modest investment in the work of the 
King Commission, we will be able to save some of these costs. It is a 
classic example of a stitch in time saving nine. We can make the step 
by authorizing the positive, constructive work of this Commission and 
save any costs associated with violence, save any costs associated with 
antisocial behavior, save the costs associated with a generation of 
young people who may not have access to information regarding the kind 
of positive values, about values going to nonviolence, to cooperation, 
to conciliation, to mediation, to working together, that the King 
Center has spent so much time working to distribute and has done so in 
a positive way.
  Finally, Madam President, I want to point out that the notion that 
there is some trick here, and that the legislation was originally 
passed with a commitment that the holiday would pass and that would be 
the end of it, is an unfounded and unfair notion about the legislation, 
the Commission, and the intent of the sponsors here.
  When the legislation creating the King holiday was first passed, 
there was in fact a discussion at the time that the Commission was to 
expire in 1986. However, from 1986, it has been reauthorized, and the 
reason it has been reauthorized has had to do with the efficacy and the 
importance of the Commission's work. The fact that it was only 
established for a discrete period of time in the first instance by no 
means was meant to preclude a continuation of the work should that work 
be found to be necessary.
  I do not think anyone in this Chamber, indeed in this country, would 
say that the work of the King Center is no longer necessary. We still 
have the same crises and issues, and we have a need, I believe, to 
communicate to our Nation that interracial cooperation is an important 
value, that value in humanity is an important value that we should talk 
about, disseminate, and educate our young people about. The interests 
in preserving and promoting nonviolence as a way to respond to concerns 
is an important value that the King Commission has sought to promote, 
and it is important for us to continue to promote that.
  Therefore, in its wisdom, the Congress has decided to extend the 
Commission. It was not in opposition to any commitments or any promises 
made at the time it was initially set up. We found that the problem 
really does command our continued attention, and it continues to be 
important to our country. And because of that continued importance, 
Senator Wofford and I, of course, as a cosponsor, introduced this 
legislation.
  The need is as great now as it has ever been. I daresay it might even 
be greater, because those of us who are old enough to be Members of 
this Chamber were around to understand and to hear and learn from the 
lessons Dr. King sought to bring not only to this country, but to the 
world. I daresay that in all the time which has transpired since his 
death, there is another generation that needs to learn the same 
lessons.
  The King Holiday Commission makes it its mission to make certain that 
these young people are not denied the benefit of those lessons and the 
help that the lessons and the information coming out of that center 
about Dr. King's work and his mission can provide to them.
  So I submit to the Members of this body that we have a real need to 
continue with this legislation, to reauthorize the activities of the 
King Federal Holiday Commission, and I therefore encourage my 
colleagues to oppose the motion by the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, the Senator from Illinois has hit the 
nail on the head. She has hit the nail twice on the head.
  If I can hammer two of those points even further in, the first is the 
letter now in the Record, which was just put in the Record by the 
Senator from Illinois from the chairman of the subcommittee that has 
oversight of the King Commission, Thomas Sawyer, Representative Sawyer, 
and a ranking Republican on Appropriations, Ralph Regula. They dealt 
with the very points that the Senator from North Carolina was making.
  I think it is very important to emphasize that in response to the 
very helpful Arthur Andersen latest report in 1993 and the very 
specific recommendations as to how the Commission could strengthen its 
practice, the Commission took immediate constructive action to 
streamline its management structure and its operations committee that 
includes the very active participation of the Honorable Judge William 
Sessions and Jack Kemp. So we are getting a report from those who are 
charged with overseeing the Commission that they are dealing with the 
very matters the Senator from North Carolina talked about.
  In the same sense, the Senator from North Carolina took us back on 
what he called legislative history and gave us a few more of the 
debates that were heard in this body before I was here, the last time 
in 1989, and restated the arguments made in those debates. That is 
exactly what he has done today. He has restated a debate that was 
debated thoroughly in 1989 when it was decided to go forth with the 
modest support that the Commission has been given. I cannot imagine 
that the turn of events in this country suggests that the reasons that 
led the overwhelming majority of Members of this body to support by a 
vote of 90-7 the work of this Commission, I cannot imagine the events 
in this country are saying that the work of this Commission is less 
needed.
  The Senator from North Carolina said the song remains the same--we 
are hearing the same old song. And in a sense he is right, he is 
singing the same tune as in 1989, rehashing the same debate.
  Well, I only wish, Madam President, that the same old song of Martin 
Luther King: black and white together, working together, hand in hand 
together, we can overcome, overcome the problems of violence and 
overcome the problems in our cities today--I cannot imagine a song I 
would rather heard sung again not so much by people marching but by 
people working together. And that is the point of this reorganization 
which is to give a renewed mandate to the Commission to go beyond what 
we have had in the past and to make this a day when we are working, 
black and white together, hand in hand together, getting our hands 
dirty dealing with the problems of our communities, showing that we can 
make a difference. That is the song we need to hear in this country, 
and this Senate can strike the right note by the right vote, by not 
cutting off all funds for the Martin Luther King Holiday Commission. 
What a signal to the world that would be by going on and making this a 
day of service, a day on and not a day off.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois if he is ready to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation that my colleague from Illinois is handling. I agree with 
Senator Wofford and Senator Moseley-Braun that to say we are going to 
have a Commission but we are not going to fund it would be the worst 
kind of message that we could possibly send.
  It is a world where we need, as Senator Wofford and my colleague have 
said, where we need this message, and all these things tie in together.
  What happened in South Africa just a few days ago in part is a 
reflection of the leadership of Martin Luther King. Senator Moseley-
Braun and I had the privilege of being down there for that 
inauguration. That night, the last ceremony we were at, we joined hands 
in singing ``We Shall Overcome,'' the same song we have sung and used 
to sing, particularly during the civil rights struggle.
  This also happens to be very close to the 40th anniversary of the 
Brown decision. The Brown decision did not work in every way like we 
had hoped, but Martin Luther King's efforts would not have been 
possible without the Brown decision. His success would not have been 
possible without that Brown decision.
  While the Brown decision has not worked in terms of integrating our 
society as fully as many of us expected and hoped at that point, there 
is no question we are a better society because of that Brown decision.
  I come from southern Illinois. We had segregated schools long after 
the Brown decision. Across the State in Missouri we had segregated 
schools as late as 1973, 19 years after the Brown decision.
  (Mr. WOFFORD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SIMON. I also ask myself how would Martin Luther King like to 
have this day observed. I had the privilege of knowing him slightly. In 
fact, I met Martin Luther King the same day I met Harris Wofford, now 
the Senator from Pennsylvania. I was in my second term as a State 
legislator in Illinois taking stands that southern Illinois legislators 
were not accustomed to taking and Martin Luther King asked me to come 
down and speak at the anniversary of the bus boycott. When I got down 
to Montgomery, I met this young fellow, Harris Wofford, who was also 
interested in the civil rights struggle.
  I remember meeting Martin Luther King. We arranged to meet at the St. 
Louis airport. We flew down to Atlanta together and then over to 
Montgomery. And when we got to Atlanta, we walked off the plane. There 
were these signs: White, colored. And I felt dirty. It was so 
offensive.
  We have moved away from that. We have not moved as far as we need to 
move, but we have moved away.
  But I do not think Martin Luther King would want an occasion where we 
would just all stand up and praise Martin Luther King.
  What we have to do is reach out to one another. I would love to see 
maybe the Sunday before Martin Luther King's birthday that all 
Americans have churches, synagogues, mosques and temples and civic 
organizations and political leaders urging people to reach out to one 
another.
  How many white families in this Nation have never had an African-
American family over for dinner? How many African-American families 
have never had a white family over for dinner? How many Christian 
families have never had a Jewish family over for dinner? And the other 
way around? Today, we have more Moslems than we have Presbyterians in 
this country. Are we reaching out to one another as we should be? We 
have more Buddhists than we have Episcopalians. What do I know about 
Buddhism? Not as much as I should. We ought to be reaching out so we 
understand one another.
  I think that is what Martin Luther King stood for, and I would love 
to see the Commission in some way move us in that direction.
  I see my colleague from Illinois standing up, and she wants to add a 
word here, I am sure, and I will yield to her.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank very much the senior 
Senator from Illinois. His comments reminded me of one of the most 
vivid reasons why this Commission is important and why Senator 
Wofford's initiative in this area is so important.
  I suppose, because I was engaged in a rather lawyerly kind of 
response to the technical issues, I have failed to really talk about 
this in another sense, in the sense that my distinguished senior 
Senator has raised. I would like to take a moment, if I may, just to 
reminisce with you and to share a personal story of my own with regard 
to Dr. King.
  When Dr. Martin Luther King came to Chicago many years ago-- and I do 
not exactly have the actual year it happened--I was no older at the 
time than one of the pages might have been, a little bit younger. My 
mother suggested that I not go on the march because she was afraid 
there might be violence and there might be a problem. Of course, being 
a teenager and knowing everything, I went to the march anyway.
  So I went to the march. I can remember marching with--actually my 
marching partner was a white male who was a veteran of the civil rights 
marches in the South. As we marched through this particular area on the 
south side, the bottles were flying and the rocks were flying, and my 
partner was hit with a rock. He took a handkerchief out and stopped the 
blood from flowing. I remember being just absolutely horrified to see 
bloodshed when this was just a peaceful demonstration, singing ``We 
Shall Overcome,'' marching down the street.
  Then we got to the middle of the park and the rocks and bottles 
really were flying quickly at this point and really a dangerous 
situation. So, in keeping with the response that had been used by the 
civil rights activists in the South, they put the women and the 
children in the center of the circle and then the men around that and 
then the veterans around that.
  And I am sure, Senator Wofford, you have probably seen that 
formation.
  Being both a woman and a child at the time, I was right in the center 
and, frankly, within touching distance of Dr. King. The rocks started 
coming, and he was actually hit with a flying object at this particular 
time.
  I can remember being on my knees, with my hands over my head like 
this, which was a formation that they told us to assume, on my knees 
with my hands over my head and I was really angry. My first reaction 
was, I am going to pick up the next rock that comes in here and I am 
going to throw it back.
  And then I saw from his presence, from his example, in what can only 
be described as a personal epiphany for me, that the reason he was not 
throwing rocks back and the reason nonviolent protest in behalf of 
positive values was so important, that by capturing the moral high 
road, by continuing to make a point based on right and making it in a 
way that was consistent with those values that say we value each 
other's humanity, that violence has no place in that, in that way Dr. 
King was winning the battle, even though the rocks were coming at us.
  So thousands of us who were on our knees were really in a stronger 
position than those faces and voices of hate who were throwing rocks at 
us and trying to deny the civil rights that we had come to march in 
behalf of.
  And I raise all that because, again, the comments of the Senator from 
Illinois reminded me of it. Because if there is no other reason for 
this Commission, it is that we can provide to young people precisely 
that kind of epiphany that says to them that nonviolence is important 
because it is predicated on a respect for the humanity of another 
person; that coming together in interracial cooperation is important 
because, putting aside all of our differences, underneath it all we are 
still brothers and sisters to each other. As the Senator from Illinois 
mentioned, in South Africa we heard a choir in Pretoria that sang last 
week, which was that, although we are different from one another, be 
proud of your heritage but know that you are my brother.
  And this was coming from an interracial group of South Africans who 
are themselves now trying to craft a multiracial, pluralistic society 
based, they believe, on what we have here in the United States.
  So if we are to maintain our leadership in the world in behalf of 
interracial and multiethnic cooperation in behalf of developing a 
pluralistic society, then we can do no more, it seems to me, than to 
continue to hold up the values that Dr. King espoused in behalf of 
those goals.
  And those values and the information about those values is precisely 
what the Federal Holiday Commission does. That is why, in the final 
analysis, it is so important and its work is so important.
  I thank my colleague and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence 
for this little personal reminiscence. But the words of the Senator 
from Illinois reminded me of how important Dr. King's lessons were for 
me as a youngster. I was fortunate enough to be there. These 
youngsters--he is no longer with us--cannot have the exact same 
experiences, but we certainly can make sure that they have the 
information and they have the lessons that came out of that noble 
period of our history.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I never heard her 
relate that story before in the many years that I have known Carol 
Moseley-Braun.
  She used one other phrase that is important to keep in mind--the 
moral high ground. That is what we have to try to achieve, however 
imperfectly we achieve it.
  I think it is worth reminding ourselves also, as we talk about Martin 
Luther King, his last effort was in behalf of custodians--janitors, if 
you will--in Memphis, TN.
  We have a country today where 23 percent of the children live in 
poverty. There is no other Western industrialized country that has 
anything like that. I am just certain, if Martin Luther King were alive 
today, he would say this good, great country can do better than that. 
That is also part of the moral high ground that we ought to be 
sensitizing ourselves to.
  I thank my colleague from Illinois and Senator Wofford for their 
leadership.
  I see Senator Feinstein is going to say a few words here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator 
Simon, and yourself, Mr. President, in putting forward H.R. 1933.
  Mr. President, let me speak first as a Californian in support of this 
legislation. I believe that if you ask people in California what two 
major issues they care most about, one would be the economy and the 
second would be reducing violence in our society.
  There is no Federal effort to my knowledge that speaks more 
eloquently to the problem of violence in our society than does the King 
Holiday Commission. Not to extend its life at a time when the real need 
to reduce violence in America is on everyone's mind would be 
incomprehensible to me.
  Mr. President, it is appropriate that you are in the chair during 
this debate. You were widely quoted last January in a Washington Post 
editorial entitled ``The King Holiday, 10 Years Later,'' which spoke 
highly of what you and Senator Moseley-Braun are trying to accomplish 
here. You suggested, simply and eloquently, that Dr. King's birthday be 
observed in the future as a ``day on,'' not merely a day off. Nothing 
could be more fitting.
  If I may, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me tell you how we mark this 
holiday in my home city of San Francisco as a day on, not a day off.
  We have in our city a very special man. His name is Dr. Cecil 
Williams, reverend to the Glide Memorial United Methodist Church. This 
is a huge church with a congregation of more than 3,000 people. People 
come into the Tenderloin of San Francisco from all over the Bay Area 
every Sunday to celebrate nonviolence, to celebrate the rehabilitation 
of the human soul. It is a church that truly ministers to the neediest 
among us, those who are down and out, those who have problems with drug 
addiction, who are homeless, who have been violent. It is a ``turn-
around'' church.
  Reverend Williams is the chairman of the Martin Luther King Holiday 
observance. On that day, a ``Freedom Train'' brings people from all 
over northern California into San Francisco. They march from the train 
station, through downtown, and on to the Civic Auditorium where they 
hear people from all walks of life speak about the message that Martin 
Luther King, Jr., tried to carry to this world, the message of 
nonviolence.
  As Dr. King said--and this is often quoted on those birthday 
celebrations:

       Peace is not merely the absence of some negative force, it 
     is the presence of a positive force. True peace is not merely 
     the absence of tension, but is the presence of justice and 
     brotherhood.

  Can anybody say that justice and brotherhood abound today in this 
land? I think not. Can anyone reasonably or thoughtfully say that now 
is the time to end this Commission? I think not.
  This Commission works with just two paid staffers. The Commission has 
worked at very modest cost for the past five years and, I am confident, 
will continue to do so for 5 more years when this bill is approved. It 
can do so much and deserves our support.
  I hope for a new thrust against violence in our society. Dr. King 
also said, ``violence is the voice of the unheard.'' I think all of us 
here would agree that voice has grown louder in the 30 years since he 
spoke that truth. More than 100,000 schoolchildren are estimated to 
take guns to school every day. Another 160,000 stay at home because 
they are afraid of the 100,000 who take guns to school every day.
  I hope, and would sound as a mission for it in the future, that this 
Commission takes up this cause with renewed vigor--that it spread Dr. 
King's message of nonviolence from school to school, from State to 
State, all across this Nation. It is time we reach out to this 
generation, and the next, to show them that nonviolence can be a 
powerful weapon, too. As Dr. King called it, ``a sword that heals.''
  The King Holiday Commission has already enlisted over 27,000 children 
in its Youth Against Violence Campaign. It has gone school to school 
and child to child to recruit them in the battle against violence. The 
Commission also has convinced 4 million more, 4 million additional 
youngsters, to commit themselves to a life of nonviolence. That is the 
kind of work that can make a difference: child to child, school to 
school, State to State. Every youngster who says ``I will not be a part 
of violence in this Nation'' makes a difference.
  When the King Holiday Commission has completed the five years of new 
work authorized and supported by this legislation, I hope that there 
will be 4 million more youngsters who have said that they too will not 
be a part of violence in this Nation. Think of the difference that will 
make.
  Many of the people in my State believe that California is going in 
the wrong direction, primarily because of violence in our society. I am 
confident that the King Holiday Commission can help ease the fears of 
people in my State and across the Nation by helping to break the cycle 
of violence that has already claimed far too many of our children.
  If anyone can succeed in this task, it is Coretta Scott King, whom I 
know well. I know her personally and as a public figure. I know, most 
of all, her total dedication to sustaining and teaching the ideals of 
Martin Luther King, Jr. There can be no better tribute to Dr. King, and 
no higher aim of the King Holiday Commission, than sharing his ideals 
with the children of America.
  I am truly amazed that there are voices in this Senate who say, ``Let 
us end this Commission. We do not have to work toward nonviolence in 
our society. This Commission should not be reconstituted. This 
Commission should not continue to be funded.'' I feel exactly the 
opposite.
  I stand today in support of your efforts, Mr. President, and those of 
my friend and colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, to see that the King 
Holiday Commission's critical work can and will be continued at this 
critical time.
  If there is to be a continuing mission for this Commission, let it be 
the education of our children in Dr. King's message of nonviolence. If 
the Commission is to pursue any goal over the next 5 years, let it be 
the recruitment of 4 million more youngsters who are willing to say 
that violence is not the way. If there is a day for Senators to stand 
and be counted in support of the King Holiday Commission and the 
rededication of Dr. King's memorial day, let it be this one. And, if 
there is to be a day in tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--as I 
hope and trust there will always be--let it be, as you have said, Mr. 
President, a day ``on,'' not merely a ``day off.''
  I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank Senator Moseley-Braun for 
bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate. I want you to know that 
our hearts and our voices are with you.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1994]

                    The King Holiday, 10 Years Later

       America in 1994 is not the same place Sen. Harris Wofford 
     described at the beginning of his constructive column on 
     yesterday's op-ed page. The southern laws which sanctioned a 
     dual society, the racially discriminatory places of public 
     accommodation, the state-sponsored voting rights barriers--
     they've all been swept away. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., 
     whose birthday is honored today, and the powerful civil 
     rights movement he led deserve much of the credit for that 
     transformation.
       Twenty-five years after his death, and a decade after the 
     inauguration of the holiday in his name, it is said that if 
     Dr. King could witness the carnage that is taking place on 
     American streets today, he would be devastated. That is 
     undoubtedly true. But we don't believe his sadness would be 
     confined to the presence of violence. Neither do we believe 
     that crime would be the only problem he would expect this 
     country to be grappling with today.
       Appearing at the Mason Temple Church where Dr. King spoke 
     in Memphis the night before he was killed, President Clinton 
     told an audience made up largely of black ministers that 
     ``the freedom to die before you're a teenager is not what 
     Martin Luther King lived and died for.'' Mr. Clinton 
     speculated that if Dr. King witnessed the wave of crime 
     sweeping the country today, he would say, ``I did not live 
     and die to see the American family destroyed.'' We can't know 
     if that is what Dr. King would say. But we do believe, based 
     on what Dr. King was preaching about the night before his 
     death, that his concern about conditions in today's Memphis 
     as well as in other American communities would include street 
     violence, and more.
       It's not likely that Dr. King, driving in from the airport 
     to Mason Temple, would have ignored the urban decay, the 
     boarded and dilapidated houses, the homelessness, the closed 
     shops in downtown Memphis--all stark evidence of what he 
     called on his last night the ``long years of poverty, their 
     long years of hurt and neglect.'' Nor would Dr. King miss the 
     reality in today's America of what he referred to in Memphis 
     25 years ago as ``God's children here suffering, sometimes 
     going hungry, going through dark and dreary nights wondering 
     how this thing is going to come out.'' It was, he said, ``the 
     issue,'' adding: ``And we've got to say to the nation: We 
     know it's coming out.''
       Sen. Wofford and Rep. John Lewis, who share Dr. king's 
     outlook all these years later, have sponsored legislation 
     aimed at making the King holiday more than another day off 
     for shopping or resting. They would have the federal holiday 
     become an active day of community service and nonviolent 
     action--the true legacy of Dr. King's life. That last night 
     in Memphis, the man we honor today told the story of the good 
     Samaritan, but in his own way. He said that maybe the man who 
     fell among thieves was left behind by the two upstanding 
     passers-by, because they were too busy. Or he said maybe 
     ``they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from 
     the causal root, rather than to get bogged down with an 
     individual.'' Or maybe, said Dr. King, they were afraid; they 
     thought the injured man on the ground was merely faking and 
     would harm them. The question of one passer-by: ``If I stop 
     to help this man, what will happen to me?'' was the wrong one 
     to ask, he said. The good Samaritan, the one who got down 
     from his beast and gave assistance, asked himself: ``If I do 
     not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'' That 
     was the right one, Dr. King said. The good Samaritan 
     ``decided not to be compassionate by proxy,'' preached Dr. 
     King. Sen. Wofford and Rep. Lewis are right to believe that 
     that is the way the King holiday should be observed.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I am going back and forth to meetings 
like a tennis ball, as most Senators are, I believe, most of the time, 
but I did manage, while doing a little work in my office, and meeting 
with some foreign dignitaries, to hear some criticism of my amendment.
  For example--well, let me go back. I wondered which amendment they 
were talking about, including, if you will forgive me, ma'am, the 
distinguished Senator from California. I have no argument with the 
Commission. My problem is somewhere, sometime we have to get a handle 
on how much of the people's money we are going to spend and for what 
purposes. My amendment does not eliminate the Commission, it returns it 
to its original condition as a privately funded group, with officials 
appointed by the Government.
  Questions were raised that had no relevance to the amendment, either 
one of them. Now, I think it was the Senator from Illinois who said 
that I had said that the King Commission was part and parcel of the 
King Center. I said no such thing. I know better than that.
  What I did say was that the King Commission and the King Center share 
many of the same officers and directors. As a matter of fact, the King 
Commission, if I recall correctly, has only two employees on its 
payroll, the rest are ``on loan'' from Uncle Sam.
  The King Commission has only 2 employees, but there are also 11 full-
time Federal employees assigned to the Commission. Now, the Center and 
the Commission share many of the same officials, and what I did ask was 
why should we pay for the King Commission when the King Center could 
easily come up with $2 million. The King Center receives about $20 
million per year in voluntary contributions.
  As I said, I may be old fashioned, but I think the folks that run the 
King Center could come up with another $2 million for 5 years to fund 
the Holiday Commission as well. As a matter of fact, the Commission 
raised its funding privately in 1985, did they not, I would ask the 
manager of the bill?
  They raised the money privately in 1985, is that right?
  Mr. WOFFORD. The King Center always raises its money privately.
  Mr. HELMS. Did the Commission, not the King Center, raise its own 
funds in 1985?
  Mr. WOFFORD. It did.
  Mr. HELMS. Did it raise them in 1986?
  Mr. WOFFORD. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. Did it raise them in 1987?
  Is the answer in the affirmative?
  Mr. WOFFORD. I believe the action--the last time this Senate voted on 
the question of ceasing the funding for the Commission was in 1989, 
when a similar motion was defeated 86 to 11.
  Mr. HELMS. I do not believe I inquired about that, but that is a 
fact, and it is probably going to happen again. But it does not make it 
right, I say to the Senator. It needs to be debated. It needs to be 
analyzed. I did not say that this was a permanent extension of the 
Commission. I said that the Moseley-Braun version of the bill, which is 
not before the Senate, does continue it indefinitely. Now, the House 
bill, which is before us, stipulates an extension of 5 years--another 5 
years, I might add.
  So 95 percent of what has been said in my absence--I have tried to 
hear what I could of it, and I have caught part of it in my office and 
then I have checked with people who have taken notes for me--about 95 
percent was just as I predicted when I made my opening remarks; that 
there would be eloquent speeches not relevant to the bill nor relevant 
to either of the two Helms amendments.
  But that is the way we do things around here. We do not debate the 
specific issue at hand. We make political speeches appealing to the 
people we want to appeal to and that sort of thing. And I have to say 
it was very appealing to hear about people's childhoods and all the 
rest of it. I could probably raise some tears to people's eyes were I 
to relate some aspects of my childhood during the Depression but that 
is not relevant.
  What I am talking about is spending the taxpayers' money on the 
commitment that has been made by individuals in the leadership of this 
Senate, year after year, that the funds will end in 5 years, and here 
we are proposing 5 more years.
  Now, that is what is relevant, not whether somebody is in favor of 
not having violence. We are all not in favor of having violence. We 
have it in North Carolina, too. Thank the Lord we do not have as much 
as California. And you need to do something about that, Senator 
Feinstein. And I am not sure that the King Center or the King 
Commission will do very much about the problems in California or North 
Carolina.
  Now, the Senators from Illinois and Pennsylvania noted that those who 
spoke on this issue in 1984, 1986, and 1989 never said that this would 
be a temporary, privately funded Commission.
  Now, I did not hear them say that, but it was reported to me that 
that is what they said. Well, they better tell that to Sam Nunn. And 
they had better tell it to Bob Dole and others who the Congressional 
Record shows felt in 1984, 1986, and 1989 that the King Commission 
would end and that it would not go on forever as the Moseley-Braun 
bill, introduced last year, planned.
  Now, when this Commission was reauthorized in 1986 and 1989, the 
Senators in the leadership positions got on this floor and told each 
other and told the Senate--and it is in the Record--each time that this 
was going to be the end of the Commission and its Federal funding.
  Now, the point is that the Commission can raise funds privately and 
it ought to do so. But, no, once Uncle Sugar got into the business of 
giving them the money, they did not want to have to raise private funds 
anymore.
  Now, someone needs to explain to me why we do not go back to the old 
system and let them raise money.
  Now, there are 11 permanent Federal employees making $75,000, $80,000 
a year--let me see the book. Why not go down the list?
  The Commission's staff includes--I have already referred to him--
Lloyd Davis, Executive Director. He is on loan from the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development; Mary Coleman, Administrative 
Assistant of the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice; somebody named 
Fisher, administrative assistant, of the Food and Nutrition Service of 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, full-time; Edison Horne, Director 
of Law Enforcement Involvement Programs, FBI, full-time; Lisa Irby, an 
accountant with the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury, of course, full-time; and so on.
  I ask unanimous consent that the rest of these names be printed in 
the Record at this point rather than take up the time of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Gerrie Maccannon, Executive Officer (Public Health Service, 
     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).
       Sheila Ricks, Special Events Coordinator (Census Bureau, 
     U.S. Department of Commerce).
       Juanita Sims, Finance Intern (Internal Revenue Service, 
     U.S. Department of the Treasury).
       Faye P. Singh, Youth Assembly Coordinator (Fort Valley 
     College [Georgia], Extension Service, U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture).
       Dr. Joel Soobitsky, National Youth Program Coordinator 
     (Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture).
       Katie Taylor, Secretary (Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 
     Department of the Interior).

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Now, Madam President, we have an interesting parliamentary situation, 
and I agreed to it this past Friday, hoping to expedite the situation 
as a matter of convenience to Senators. I agreed to a then-proposed 
unanimous consent agreement that all amendments would be offered and 
debated today and voted on tomorrow.
  I ask the Chair, or the Parliamentarian through the Chair, if I am 
not correct about that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. That is what the 
agreement provides.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Parliamentarian.
  Now, I am going to ask unanimous consent to lay aside the Helms 
first-degree amendment and the second-degree amendment, of course, so 
that a third amendment can be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WOFFORD. I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. WOFFORD. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the two amendments are set 
aside.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the able Senator. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1740

(Purpose: To end the practice of having Federal civil servants detailed 
to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission for years on 
                                  end)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1740.

  The amendment follows:

       On page 2, strike lines 20 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       (3) in section 6--
       (A) in subsection (a) by striking ``maximum rate of pay 
     payable for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 
     5332'' and inserting ``rate of pay for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1) by adding the following at the 
     end: ``A person who has been detailed under the preceding 
     sentence for as many as 365 days (continuously or 
     intermittently) may not subsequently be detailed to the 
     Commission.''.

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the clerk.
  Madam President, further working our way along in this complicated 
fix we are in because of the unanimous-consent agreement, I think under 
the rules, or certainly under practice and precedent, it is possible 
that the manager of the bill and the Senator from North Carolina can 
obtain the yeas and nays. We can get the yeas and nays at some time. I 
would like to get that out of the way.
  So I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas 
and nays on all three of the Helms amendments thus far offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank my colleague. I do not always agree with him, but 
I like him.
  I will not comment on my friend from California. But she knows how 
kindly I think of her.
  This amendment is simple. What it proposes to do is prohibit any 
official, officer, or civil servant of the U.S. Government--that is, 
Federal bureaucrat--from serving on loan to the King Holiday Commission 
for more than 1 year. After 1 year employees on loan to the Commission 
must go back to their regular jobs.
  It does not--let me emphasize, not--prohibit Federal agencies from 
lending employees to this Commission. It simply ensures that they will 
promptly return to the job which the taxpayers expect them to do. I 
think this is a fair request.
  Madam President, even before the King Commission began receiving 
Federal funds up front in 1989, the taxpayers were footing a pretty 
hefty bill for its operations. According to the King Holiday 
Commission's 1988 annual report:

       All of the Commission's staff, except for the Executive 
     Director, were provided on a nonreimbursable basis by Federal 
     agencies * * *

  That is back-door financing.
  Most Senators probably do not know that the salaries of the majority 
of the employees of the King Commission are paid for by the American 
taxpayer. Let me read down the list of some of the staff and the 
departments providing the King Commission with their services, as 
listed in the Commission's 1993 annual report. I have read some of them 
before but let's review it again.
  Lloyd Davis, Executive Director--HUD.
  Mary Coleman, administrative assistant--FBI.
  Vash Fisher, administrative assistant--Agriculture.
  Ed Horne, law programs--FBI.
  Lisa Irby, accountant--IRS.
  The list also includes officers from the Public Health Service, the 
Census Bureau, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Agriculture 
Extension Service.
  Let me say, before somebody raises a question, that I know that it is 
not unusual for Federal agencies to loan other agencies personnel for a 
short period of time. The practice is common in the Armed Forces and in 
Federal law enforcement. What makes the King Commission situation so 
extraordinary is that some of the officials on loan to the Commission 
have become permanent fixtures within this organization.
  Surely the Senate is going to accede to my suggestion that we stop 
that practice and limit the loan to 1 year. It is going to be 
interesting to see how the votes go on this.
  Let us take a look again at the Executive Director of the King 
Commission, Mr. Lloyd Davis. Mr. Davis is an employee of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development. I do not know what duties Mr. Davis 
performed at HUD and for all I know he did a good job there and does a 
good job with the King Commission, although he is prominently mentioned 
in the Arthur Andersen 1992 audit of the financial problems that the 
King Commission has experienced during its existence.
  So something is amiss. Whether it is Mr. Davis' fault, I do not know. 
I do not know how many hours a day he spends, if any, at the 
Commission. I do not know whether he flies first class when he travels 
on the King Commission's airline ticket. But Mr. Davis, as I have said 
two or three times, has been ``on loan'' to the King Commission since 
the time of the creation of the King Commission in 1984.
  Now, I have run a department of a major city newspaper, a news 
operation, and a television station. I have been executive vice 
president of a broadcasting company. And if I had ``loaned'' employees 
from another section of my company for over 10 years, I think the board 
of directors would have said, ``Mr. Helms, come in. We need to talk to 
you a little bit.'' I would consider that individual to be a permanent 
part of my staff. But Mr. Davis is not a permanent part of the King 
Commission, at least not insofar as the records are concerned. He may 
have that understanding with the King Commission. There is nothing in 
writing. But he is still being paid by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, and nobody figures that salary in.
  Mr. Davis, according to the records that we have checked very 
carefully, is paid by the taxpayers more than $85,000 a year, not 
including any allowances that the Government gives him to live in 
Atlanta while he is working for the Commission.
  I do not mind the manager of the bill spicing up the oratory about 
how much he loves freedom and how much he loves children, and all the 
rest of it. Of course, the rest of us do, too. Just tell me about Mr. 
Lloyd Davis. I want the manager of the bill to tell the Senate how a 
man could make $85,000 a year from an agency at which he has not worked 
for more than 10 years.
  Mr. Davis is not the only King Commission employee who appears to 
have taken permanent leave from his regular Federal Government job. 
Another official, for example--and I could go on a long time talking 
about these various employees--is a fellow named Ed Horne, who 
coordinates the King Commission activities with the law enforcement 
agencies. Mr. Horne is an employee of the FBI--at least he is listed as 
an employee of the FBI. But as far as I can tell, based on the record, 
he has not worked for the FBI in at least 4 years, and probably longer 
than that.
  I cannot imagine that the FBI has so little to do that it can 
reasonably afford to send one of its agents, or more than one of its 
agents, on permanent ``loan'' to anybody, including the Martin Luther 
King Holiday Commission. The pattern is the same in several respects 
involving several King Commission staffers. Once they go on ``loan'' to 
the King Commission, they are reborn; they stay there. I think, as a 
matter of policy, the Senate ought to take some step regarding that.
  Madam President, I guess in a week's time I meet with 200 or more 
people, just one after another, and I am glad to see them all. But a 
surprising percentage of the people who come to me concerned about 
their country, or concerned about their Government, ask me, ``How did 
we get into this $4.5 trillion debt situation?'' The total is actually 
more than $4.5 trillion, but in round numbers, it is about $4.5 
trillion of debt which has been run up by the Congress of the United 
States.
  I hear political statements on this floor that it is ``Reagan's debt 
or ``Bush's debt.'' Let me tell you one thing. Unless they changed the 
Constitution when I was not looking, no money, not one thin dime, could 
be spent for any reason that has not first been authorized and 
appropriated by the Congress of the United States. So that ``dead cat'' 
lying at our door is our cat; it is not Reagan's, or Carter's, or 
Bush's, or Clinton's. The Congress of the United States is responsible 
for that $4.5 trillion debt piled on the backs of young people, like 
the pages sitting on either side of the dais.
  It is time to say what Senators have been saying every time this 
matter has come up: ``Well, this is the last time; there will not be 
any funding after this.'' Sam Nunn said it, Bob Dole said it, and Terry 
Sanford said it. I guess we will hear that today. But it has not been 
the last time yet, and I hope it will be one of these days.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WOFFORD. How much time is there, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 60 minutes 
available on this amendment.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, that is on the new amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. WOFFORD. How much time is there on the two amendments that were 
laid aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 47 minutes remaining.
  On the ones laid aside, on the second-degree amendment, the Senator 
from Pennsylvania controls 12 minutes and the Senator from North 
Carolina controls 19 minutes.
  On the first-degree amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania controls 
39 minutes and the Senator from North Carolina controls 7 minutes.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, before responding to the latest facts 
and/or reports from the Senator from North Carolina, let me give just a 
little background now on the history of this Commission, which other 
Senators may not be as familiar with as I am.
  When it was created in 1984, the King Commission established a 
501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, able to solicit funds in the private 
sector. It was competing against already established organizations, 
such as the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change in 
Atlanta--the Center. Then, in the inaugural observance of the national 
holiday, there was a great deal of excitement and anticipation as to 
what this holiday might be and what could be done with special funds.
  Senator Dole, then the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, and Edward 
Jefferson, president of the DuPont Co., helped to raise private funds 
for the observance of that first King Federal holiday on January 20, 
1986. The aim was to raise at least $2 million. The net result was that 
$300,000 was raised under favorable conditions, the most favorable 
conditions the Commission has experienced, because it was the beginning 
of the holiday, the birth of the holiday. The enthusiasm and interest 
in the first King holiday observance carried over. But in recent years 
it has declined, and from 1990, it has never exceeded $100,000 a year. 
The lowest level of contributions came in 1993 when the Commission 
raised $34,000.
  The arguments that the senior Senator from Illinois, the junior 
Senator from Illinois, the Senator from California, and I have made as 
to the timing of this reauthorization and the needs of our Nation for 
this work to be continued are all, it seems to me, very compelling in 
the light of the financial history as to whether that worked for a 
national holiday--the first such national holiday honoring a private 
citizen, as the Senator from North Carolina has stressed. But the real 
question is whether this is the time to cut out or cut back and to 
cripple our very modest Federal effort, and it seems to me that the 
argument for that, knowing the facts of life in our country, is so hard 
to make.
  At this point, I want to note that we have a Labor Day in this 
country; we have a Veterans Day in this country; and we recently 
celebrated the 500th anniversary of Columbus discovering America. I 
think we would find, if we did research on that, that very substantial 
resources by the Labor Department in connection with Labor Day, and the 
Veterans Administration for Veterans Day, and by the Christopher 
Columbus Commission, is attributed to and focused on making those big 
and successful holidays. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina 
himself supported a Bicentennial Commission and its funding.
  This is a new and noble venture indeed. The Congress of the United 
States decided to make it so. This is a time to continue it and to give 
it a renewed mandate that is more practical, more important, and more 
pertinent, while building on their previous successes.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The time will be equally divided on the two sides on the pending 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe this amendment has been checked 
with all sides. I ask that the pending amendment and the other two--all 
three of the amendments--be laid aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1741

(Purpose: To stop the use of taxpayers' funds by the Commission to pay 
          for first-class air travel or hotel accommodations)

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for it to be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1741.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 3, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       On page 3, between lines 12 and 13 insert the following:
       (7) by adding at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 10. None of the funds appropriated or donated to the 
     Commission may be used for the purpose of purchasing first 
     class air travel or first class hotel accommodations.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, this amendment is short, it is simple and 
it is one that the Senate should easily support. This amendment 
precludes any official of the King Commission from using first class 
airline flights or first class hotel accommodations with Federal funds.
  We have just had a lengthy debate in the Senate over what gifts and 
perks are proper for Senators to accept. No public official can 
ethically enjoy such luxuries as first class accommodations on the 
public tab. This amendment ensures that staff and directors of 
commissions--all commissions--abide by the same rules, the public 
expects all public officials to abide by.
  No individual has a right to live in the lap of luxury at the 
taxpayers expense.
  I believe this amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. WOFFORD. We accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1741) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe it would be in order to have a 
short quorum call. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will be tolled on 
both sides. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1740, As Modified

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, this has been discussed with the 
distinguished manager of the bill and our respective staffs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Helms amendment affecting Federal 
employees on loan to the King Commission be modified so as to make 
certain and to allow them 1 year to complete their duties with the King 
Commission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. WOFFORD. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. HELMS. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be incorporated into the 
amendment.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:

       On page 2, strike lines 20 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       (3) in section 6--
       (A) in subsection (a) by striking ``maximum rate of pay 
     payable for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 
     5332'' and inserting ``rate of pay for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1) by adding the following at the 
     end: ``A person who has been detailed under the preceding 
     sentence for as many as 365 days (continuously or 
     intermittently) may not subsequently be detailed to the 
     Commission.''.
       (C) All federal employees on loan to the King Commission on 
     the day of enactment of this Act may remain detailed to the 
     Martin Luther King Holiday Commission for not more than 365 
     days.''

  Mr. HELMS. Again, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 1742 and 1743, En Bloc

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have two amendments prepared by the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. They have been checked 
and cleared on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that they be approved en bloc, and the motion 
to reconsider en bloc and the tabling of the motion to reconsider en 
bloc.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, we have consulted with Senator Brown 
and his staff, and we think these are improving amendments. We accept 
them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is granted.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1742

      (Purpose: To improve the Commission's accounting procedures)

  Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 1742 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       (7) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 10. ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES.

       ``The Commission shall follow a comprehensive basis of 
     accounting, as defined by the Comptroller General in B-
     255473. The Commission shall establish an accounting system 
     for review by the Comptroller General under section 3512 of 
     title 31, United States Code. The Comptroller General is 
     authorized to review and audit the Commission, its programs, 
     activities, operations, and financial transactions. The 
     Comptroller General, and his agents, shall have access to all 
     records, files, documents, and papers of the Commission, as 
     necessary, to accomplish such audits.''.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the King Commission may receive its own 
appropriations directly, it may receive private donations, and it may 
receive grants from a government corporation which has its own 
appropriations. The Commission is responsible for implementing the 
policies and organizing the activities. The Commission is responsible 
for raising and dispensing other funds. This organization 
understandably can get confusing.
  As I understand it, the Commission found the bookkeeping to be 
complex enough to ask Arthur Anderson to conduct an audit of the 
corporation. The Commission, however, is not regularly audited. While 
Federal agencies are required to follow generally accepted accounting 
procedures, the Commission is not technically a Federal agency. As a 
consequence, the Commission can follow any or no accounting standards. 
To date, I believe they have followed good accounting standards. 
However, the Commission should be required to follow the same rules as 
other Federal commissions and agencies.
  This amendment would do just that: require the Commission to follow 
generally accepted accounting standards.
  This amendment would also authorize the GAO to conduct a review and 
audit of the programs and accounting of the Commission. This simply 
would enable GAO to take a look at the accounting as it may do for 
other Federal agencies.
  Madam President, this amendment does not burden this Commission with 
unusual demands. Instead, it simply requires that the Commission lives 
under the same accounting rules of any other Federal body.


                           amendment no. 1743

        (Purpose: To modify the Commission report requirements)

  Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 1743 for Mr. Brown.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, strike lines 8 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       (5) by amending section 8 to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 8. COMMISSION REPORT.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than April 20 of each year, 
     the Commission shall submit a report to the President and the 
     Congress concerning its activities under this Act or under 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990.
       ``(b) Analysis Required.--The Commission shall include in 
     its annual report--
       ``(1) a detailed description of all activities undertaken 
     by the Commission;
       ``(2) an analysis of the spending practices of the 
     Commission indicating how much of the funds of the Commission 
     are dedicated to salaries, travel expenses, and other 
     overhead costs and how much are dedicated to the stated goals 
     of the Commission; and
       ``(3) a detailed description of any grants made by the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service with the 
     consultation of the Commission.''.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I offer this amendment simply to make 
sure Congress is informed about the Commission it creates. This 
amendment would require the Commission to report to Congress and the 
President about the activities and programs the Commission undertakes.
  The Commission is currently required to submit an annual report to 
the President and the Congress. There is no direction in the law 
concerning the contents of this report. This amendment would direct the 
Commission to include a few things in the report that are important.
  First, the Commission would be required to provide a detailed 
description of all its activities.
  Second, the Commission would be required to explain the spending 
practices of the Commission with an eye toward how much is spent on 
overhead and how much is spent on reaching the goals of the Commission. 
This is similar to the service available for any charity which provides 
potential donors with information concerning how much is spent on 
overhead and how much reaches the desired goal.
  Third, the Commission would be required to detail how much money the 
Commission receives from the corporation under the National and 
Community Service Act of 1990. The corporation receives its own 
appropriations and is authorized under this bill to make grants to the 
Commission. I think it is important for Congress, the President and 
taxpayers to know how much money is dedicated to this Government 
program from all areas, not just the direct appropriation. It would be 
helpful to know not only how much money is appropriated to the 
Commission and but also how much of the funds appropriated to the 
corporation actually ends up with the Commission.


                         Vote on Amendment 1739

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, as I understand it, the distinguished 
manager of the bill is willing to accept the second-degree Helms 
amendment.
  Mr. WOFFORD. That is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Do you want to put that to a vote, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has requested a vote on the 
second-degree amendment No. 1739.
  Mr. HELMS. Right. I urge its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have been advised that the yeas and nays 
will have to be vitiated.
  Mr. HELMS. That is correct. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays on this amendment alone be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1739) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, that leaves only the Helms underlying 
amendment, and the yeas and nays have been ordered on that amendment as 
well; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. And we have agreed there will be no attempt to second 
degree that amendment. We will have a rollcall vote on that tomorrow. 
Does the distinguished manager of the bill remember what time that vote 
will be scheduled?
  This amendment will be on the question of deleting Federal funding 
for the King Commission, followed by a vote on limiting the amount of 
time--Madam President, I need to check with the Parliamentarian. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I understand that agreement has been reached on amendment 
No. 1740. I inquire of the Chair, is that correct?
  Mr. WOFFORD. That is the amendment on limiting the detail?
  Mr. HELMS. That is correct.
  Mr. WOFFORD. That is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I just suggest that the Chair put that to a vote. I urge 
its approval.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I move to vitiate----
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Martin 
Luther King Holiday and Service Act of 1994.
  This legislation will reauthorize the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
Holiday Commission for 5 years. In addition, it will authorize the 
Corporation for National and Community Service to make grants for 
community service opportunities in conjunction with the holiday.
  We can all be proud of what the Commission has accomplished since it 
was created in 1984. Today all 50 States observe the King holiday. But 
much more than being about 1 day of observance, the Commission sponsors 
activities throughout the year that carry on Dr. King's labor for peace 
and reconciliation.
  With very limited resources, the Commission has promoted education 
for our kids about alternatives to violence and crime. The Commission 
has enlisted 4 million young Americans to sign a pledge of commitment 
to nonviolence and has involved over 27,000 young people in Youth 
Against Violence symposiums.
  It is an appropriate extension of the Commission`s mission to promote 
community service projects surrounding the holiday that reflect Dr. 
King's life and legacy. As America struggles to recapture the hearts 
and minds of our young people, the Commission can send an important 
message: There is power in nonviolence, and strength in service.
  I can think of no more fitting tribute to Dr. King.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 
774, the King Holiday and Service Act of 1994. This act would support 
the planning and performance of national service opportunities in 
conjunction with the Federal legal holiday honoring the birthday of 
Martin Luther King, Jr. I can think of no more appropriate tribute to 
Dr. King than to inspire more voluntary work to rebuild our 
communities.
  The late Dr. King has properly been regarded as a national treasure--
inspiring understanding among racial and ethnic groups, nonviolent 
conflict resolution, equal opportunities, and social justice. He has 
inspired the pursuit of racial and ethnic equality not only in America, 
but also around the world.
  The Commission to assist in the observance of the Federal legal 
holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., established on August 27, 
1984, was created to ensure the annual recognition of Dr. King's 
incredible work. Because of this commission's success, a Federal legal 
holiday has been created to honor Dr. King. The Commission's initial 
goal has been reached. However, now is the time to move even further.
  We must not only recognize Dr. King's dream, but also honor it by 
encouraging others to follow his example. It would seem inappropriate 
to only create a holiday to celebrate the life of a man of action. 
Instead, we should utilize Dr. King's accomplishments to inspire 
action, to give knowledge, and to form bonds among our many 
communities. This is the true spirit of Dr. King.
  The cost of the Commission is modest, particularly when one views 
this as what it is--an investment in our future. Through this 
investment in service, we would multiply the kind of voluntary action 
Dr. King has already inspired. Through this investment in peace, we 
would save in the cost of violence, not only monetarily, but also in 
human suffering. Never before has it been more important for our young 
people to hear Dr. King's words. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
support the King Holiday and Service Act of 1994 so that we may 
continue the honored legacy of Dr. King.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated. All time is yielded back, and the question is on agreeing to 
the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 1740), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. It won by two to nothing.
  I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Now, if the Chair will tell us what the procedure will be 
tomorrow afternoon at 2:30, I would appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 1738, as 
amended. That is a first-degree amendment, as amended.
  Mr. HELMS. The yeas and nays have been ordered on that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. It is my 
understanding the vote will occur at about 2:30 tomorrow.
  Mr. HELMS. Just for the record, to be clear, that amendment is on the 
funding question relating to the King Commission?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WOFFORD. And the yeas and nays, have they been requested on----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Final passage?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested on 
final passage.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Now, on my part, I yield back all remaining time allocated 
to me this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. There still will be 10 minutes tomorrow prior to the vote; 
is that correct?
  Mr. WOFFORD. The proposal, I understood, was to be 15 minutes to be 
shared by the Senator, and the Senator from Illinois, and myself.
  Mr. HELMS. All time has been yielded back, and I ask to make sure 
that we are through here this afternoon?
  Mr. WOFFORD. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has yielded 
back time. The Senator from Pennsylvania has not yet done so.
  Mr. WOFFORD. If the Presiding Officer agrees to yielding back of 
time, all remaining time will be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers have that prerogative.
  Without objection, time is yielded back on both sides of the debate.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, let me thank the Chair and all others who 
have participated in this debate, particularly my friend from 
Pennsylvania. He is a gentleman, and I enjoy working with him.
  Mr. WOFFORD. I enjoyed working with the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________