[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   THANKS TO SENATOR DENNIS DeCONCINI

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the manager of this bill on the majority 
side, Senator Dennis DeConcini, comes from the West just like I do. I 
arrived here 22 years ago. I have a funny sounding name. It also ends 
in ``i'' like Senator DeConcini.
  This Senate, for all of its history, had only one Italian-American 
Senator, John Pastore, a Democrat from Rhode Island, until the Senate 
was shocked to find that there were actually Italian-American 
Republicans in the West. But I arrived. I was the first Italian-
American Senator to ever serve as a Republican.
  It was not too long afterward that our neighboring State--and, 
actually, we used to be one before we separated and became States and 
joined the Union. It was not too long thereafter until another arrived 
from the West. And his name was Dennis DeConcini. Frankly, neither he 
nor I think our names are very similar. But somehow there are many 
people who think we are one and the same. In fact, we joked many times 
about getting each other's mail, and even of people stopping us at 
various places around the country. And, interestingly enough, as I 
recall, he helped President Carter, and he voted for the Panama Canal 
Treaty with a reservation that he posed. I did not. That was a pretty 
heavy issue out there among conservatives.
  Frankly, I was stopped in many places shortly after that, and I was 
accosted as being one who voted for the Panama Canal Treaty. I wondered 
what they were talking about. I soon found that in some instances our 
names were being confused, and it did not all make too much sense. But 
frankly, I was never embarrassed to be confused with Dennis DeConcini. 
I hope the same is true for him.
  In addition, I can remember one time because of certain positions the 
good Senator from Arizona had taken regarding organized crime that 
there was kind of a note around, sort of a rumble, that his life had 
been threatened. I remember joking to him saying, ``Is the threat over 
with? I hope so. So they won't be confusing us.'' And we had a good 
laugh about that.
  But seriously, I rise tonight to say thanks to my good friend, not 
because of where our ancestors came from, but because I think he has 
been a very, very good Senator. Regardless of what has happened and the 
reason that he has decided not to run, I wanted him to know and the 
Senate to know that this is one Senator who knows him very, very well 
because I have worked with him. I had this particular position of the 
ranking member on this subcommittee for a long time. I can tell you: 
There is no harder working person around. Second, there is no Senator 
in this Senate or in modern times that is more concerned about the law 
enforcement man on the beat. He had more concern for the Border Patrol, 
the FBI, the DEA, than any Senator here. He did more early on when 
crime was not the issue of the day than anybody here. And I believe 
that, as he leaves us, it is time for somebody from this side of the 
aisle to say that about somebody from that side of the aisle. And I say 
it very willingly and very openly.
  I could go through some things that this small bill--it does not have 
a lot of jurisdiction that was done on this bill to help the 
relationship between the United States and Mexico, and a big precursor 
to NAFTA.
  You know, Mr. President, and fellow Senators, it was not a President 
of the United States, nor any of his Cabinet people, nor his Border 
Patrol director, any of those, that came to the Congress and said the 
border between Mexico and America as it pertains to our facilities, 
border crossings, with jails attendant, with restrooms that are there, 
with facilities that are there--nobody came forward from the executive 
branch saying that is a disgrace, a disaster. It really is not 
befitting the United States to have such deplorable border facilities. 
It was Senator DeConcini.
  Believe it or not, in a Treasury, Postal bill, the first signs of a 
master plan for making the border facilities modern between our two 
great nations came from this little subcommittee under the leadership 
of that Senator from the State of Arizona; a $357 million program to 
rebuild facilities that were broken down, that were absolutely 
disgraces. I had one in my State that essentially, if either OSHA or 
the Environmental Protection Agency or any regulatory agency for the 
United States went and looked at it, they would have closed it down.
  It was a disaster in terms of how it treated people; the jail 
facilities. Federal judges would have let people out of there the 
minute they arrived, if they knew about them. There was nothing at all 
modern about the scales, the weighing system, and how you stop people 
and check.
  There is a brand spanking new facility there, as there are many 
places up and down that border which, as I said, are necessary 
infrastructure precursors to a NAFTA and an increase of trade between 
our two countries.
  So that is one that I choose to mention here tonight because in a 
very real way it shows a lot of things. It shows he knows the problems 
of his State, and expands that quickly to the national problem; and, 
second, he has a great deal of tenacity. I mean, he will not give up. 
There are some around here who, I am sure, do not like that tenacity 
because they wish he would have given up from time to time around here. 
But he did not give up when it came to finding a way to put that kind 
of program into place and into being, even if it was in an 
appropriations bill.
  I think he remembers that. Let me also say that the battles here on 
the floor today never seem to disappear. How many internal revenue 
agents are enough? Revenue forgone has been an issue forever. At least 
it is finally getting resolved in terms of how does the Post Office 
handle the charitable kinds of mailings coming in at less than full 
price and who pays for that.
  Congress is never willing to face up to that year after year, 
sticking this little committee with that problem, as if all of a sudden 
we can write laws to change that. With his tenacity and hard work, that 
is mostly solved, with reference to the future of reduced-rate mailings 
for the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, and the Organization for the Blind, and 
the like.
  So, Mr. President, I do not pass judgment on the amendment before us, 
but I do pass judgment tonight for myself, personally. And we say thank 
you, Arizona, for sending Senator DeConcini. It has been a pleasure to 
be his colleague and to find many areas where we could work together 
for our States and our Country.

                          ____________________