23766 - US Government Publishing Office

23766 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS September 15, 1982

ON A VISIT TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY BY: HIS EXCELLENCY, YOSHIO OKA W ARA, AMBASSADOR OF JAPAN TO THE UNITED STATES

HON. JULIAN C. DIXON OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, September 15, 1982

• Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to report to the House concerning a very unique event that took place in the County of Los Angeles on August 13, 1982 relative to this great Nation's relationship with the Government of Japan.

On August 13, 1982 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors hosted a luncheon and community reception for His Excellency, Yoshio Okawara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the United States.

The five members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: chairman, Peter Schabarum; Kenneth Hahn; Edmund Edelman; Dean Dana; and Michael Antonovitch, each expressed their personal greetings to His Excellency in recognition of the importance of leading Government officials to publicly recognize the value of good relations between the United States and Japan. Further, in greeting His Excellency, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors emphasized how a continuous and recipricol friendship between the United States and Japan through the County of Los Angeles, can greatly enhance the world economy through a process of cultural communication and understanding.

Throughout the day, by a motion of the board of supervisors, the colors of Japan were proudly flown side-by-side with Old Glory, over the Hall of Administration, representing the second time in the county's history that the Japanese flag was flown, the first time being during the visit of His Majesty, Emperor Hirohito of Japan in 1974.

That evening, during the Sayonara Banquet of the Japanese American Citizens League's 27th Biennial National Convention, at which His Excellency was the keynote speaker, Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn presented Ambassador Okawara with a resolution signed by each supervisor acknowledging Ambassador Okawara's contributions to strengthen United States-Japan relations. It was at this time that His Excellency, Yoshio Okawara, delivered the follow-

ing message, before the delegates and guests of the J ACL.

ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY YOSHIO 0KAWARA AMBASSADOR OF JAPAN

My wife and I cherish this opportunity to be with you. As you know, I travel frequently and widely around this vast country, meeting with a great variety of Americans who, in one way or another, have an interest in Japanese-American relations, and are part of the complex fabric of mutual understanding and cooperation, on which our partnership rests. These are very educational and rewarding experiences for me. I was extremely impressed and delighted to find so many of our friends and relatives as respected citizens of the United States and active members of local communities in various comers of this country-in mid-West, Sun Belt, Eastern Heartland and so on.

There is no group of Americans, I am sure, with a deeper interest than yours in the success of this partnership. Nor is there any group of Americans that has done more than you to build this partnership on solid foundations.

The Issei who came to these shores one, two or three generations ago-your parents or grandparents-brought with them something of Japan that they grafted onto the American experience. Their way was seldom easy, and their hardships were severe. Yet they persisted, confident that they had a contribution to make in return for the rewards that life in America could offer them, and their children. Nothing is more descriptive and revealing about them than the stories in the now classical book "Nisei". written by Mr. Bill Hosokawa.

Professor Reischauer wrote in his foreword to Mr. Hosokawa's book, "No immigrant group encountered higher walls of prejudice and discrimination than did the Japanese • • •. None retained greater faith in the basic ideals of America or showed stronger determination to establish their rights to full equality and justice • • •. None showed greater loyalty to the United States • • •."

Indeed, many of those trans-Pacific pioneers made unique and lasting contributions to America in the fields of agriculture, business, professions and arts. Not the least of their contributions was that they gave to America a second generation, native born, and advantaged by growing up in American communities and in the American education system. But the Nisei also faced hardships of grudging acceptance and, when our two nations were at war, the most poignant hardship of having their loyalty as American citizens questioned.

It is a tribute to the fortitude of Issei, Nisei, and Sansei alike-and to the basic sense of justice and fair play of the American nation-that those darkest days are now far behind us, and that the scars are at last healing. You have earned positions of leadership in all areas of American life, providing a governor of a great state, five members of Congress, distinguished scholars, musicians and artists, journalists, fine teachers and other public servants, and above all, a model of good and loyal citizenship.

You have much to be proud of, and the country your ancestors came from is proud of your accomplishments.

It is in this spirit that I want to report to you this evening on the present state of Japanese-American relations. You are entitled to my candid appraisal.

It would be dishonest to pretend that there are no problems or differences whatsoever between our two countries. or that the problems that do exist are insignificant. The problems are real, and they are important. At the other extreme, it would be quite irresponsible to suggest that our current differences-whether in the economic field or over defense budgeting-are so serious that they threaten the stability of the Japanese-American partnership. This is simply not so, nor does any responsible public official in either government believe it is so.

These days we hear much about the "family disputes" in the U.S.-European relations. In the Japanese-American alliance, a "divorce" or even a separation is unthinkable.

The trade problem-specifically, how to deal with the chronic U.S. deficit in our bilateral trade-is a serious question because, in the first place, it concerns the basic structure and performance of our two giant and closely intertwined economies. In the second place, how we resolve our current trade frictions is bound to have wide repercussions throughout the world economy, because of the leading roles the United States and Japan play in world trade, investment and technology development.

Moreover, the present sluggish state of the world economy, causing high unemployment, continuing inflationary pressures, and the high cost of capital makes it extremely difficult to grapple with these complex issues. In each major trading nation, policy makers are under powerful political pressure to cushion the domestic economy against external forces that are viewed as threats to domestic jobs.

The most dangerous temptation is to try to insulate domestic jobs from foreign trade competition. This is the protectionist route the world followed in the early 1930s, and it led straight to the disaster of the Great Depression, as shrinking world trade smothered economic growth around the world. The rebirth of protectionist pressures, especially in Western Europe and also in the United States, is the clearest warning that we must find sensible, free-market solutions to Japanese-American trade problems if we are to restore dynamic growth to our own economies, and to preserve an open and expanding world economy.

As recently as 30 years ago, Japan's economy was less than 5 percent of the then giant American economy. Today the American giant is more than five times larger than it was in 1950, but the Japanese economy has grown even faster, making Japan's GNP nearly half that of the United States. Japan now generates 10 percent of world GNP and accounts for 10 percent of world trade. The United States and Japan together provide nearly one-third of world product and world trade.

e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor.

September 15, 1982 Throughout these three decades, our two

countries have been each other's principal overseas trading partners, in a two-way exchange that is now valued at $60 billion a year. To a great extent this trade has been complementary. Japan, which must import half the calories it consumes, has consistently been the American farmer's best overseas customer buying $7 billion in 1981. Resource-poor Japan has also been a ranking importer of American coal, minerals, forestry products and other basic materials. Japan has also been a major market for American exports of manufactured goods, which now constitute over 40 percent of Japan's total imports from the United States.

In return, the United States has long been the largest market in the world for the goods Japan is capable of exporting, manufactured products.

As both our economies prospered, and our two-way trade doubled in value each five years, the areas where our manufactured exports are in competition with each other have also grown. Once it was textiles, and now it is products of high technology industry. The competition between industrial economies has traditionally been a powerful stimulant for invention, innovation, greater manufacturing efficiency, lower prices to the consumer, and rising standards of living. This has unquestionably been true of the Japanese-American economic relationship, which is both complementary and competitive.

For the last decade and a half, however, our two-way trade has been imbalanced in Japan's favor. As our trade has grown, so has the U.S. deficit in this trade, and this situation has created periodic frictions between us. In purely economic terms, the imbalance should be no cause for alarm, as long as a deficit with one partner can be offset by a surplus with another. A realistic measure of a nation's trade performance is its overall trade balance with all its trading partners.

An even more realistic measure would take account, not only of merchandise trade, but also of trade in "invisibles"-the international flow of capital which results from investment, repatriated profits on foreign investment, royalties and license fees, tourist expenditures, and so on. By this measure, the United States usually outperforms Japan. Last year the U.S. had a healthy surplus in its invisible trade with Japan, and the combined U.S. current account balance was in surplus with the world.

However, in a time of worldwide recession, underutilized manufacturing capacity, and high unemployment, politics carries more weight than economic principles. The only way to fend off political pressure for trade protectionism is to find other ways of reducing the trade gap. We have, in fact, been working hard on different approaches.

First, the Japanese Government has taken extraordinary steps to cut tariffs and reduce other import barriers in order to make the Japanese market one of the most open and accessible markets in the entire industrialized world. Japan's trade-weighted average tariffs are lower than those in the United States, and much lower than in Western Europe. We have also eliminated a number of sensitive tariffs and import quotas. And we have simplified import procedures, streamlined testing requirements and established an Office of Trade Ombudsman to deal promptly with any complaints of discrimination against imports. We are determined to internationalize the domestic market.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Second, we are making strenuous efforts

to promote expanded U.S. exports to Japan. We are providing advice and marketing assistance to U.S. manufacturers interested in selling to Japan. In a different context, Japanese industries are providing technical assistance to help modernize U.S. steel, automobile, machine tool and other industries. Japanese investment in U.S. plants, now in excess of $10 billion, is creating American jobs and adding to the U.S. GNP. A growing number of Japanese plants in the United States are also now exporting U.S.-made goods to Japan and the world. And the seven largest Japanese trading companies operating in the United States now account for about 10 percent of U.S. exports to the world.

All these measures together are strengthening Japanese-American economic interdependence by helping to strengthen the competitiveness of American products, at home and in world trade.

There is another point I want to refer you to. Japan and our mutual trading partners in Western Europe have been concerned with the excessively high U.S. interest rates. These interest rates, which have artificially overvalued the U.S. dollar, are one of the contributing factors to current U.S. trade deficits with Japan. An overvalued dollar means overpriced U.S. goods, and therefore a loss of price competitiveness for American exports.

High U.S. interest rates have also complicated the tasks of Japan and other American trading partners in efforts to restore vitality and growth to our respective domestic economies. The capital we need to maintain and expand our domestic plant has been fleeing to U.S. money markets for speculative purposes that contribute little to world economic health. We hope that recent cuts in the U.S. official discount rate are the beginning of a healthier trend, and that they will continue.

I have given you perhaps a more technical explanation of our current economic concerns than you bargained for. However, I believe it is very important to put these questions into perspective.

It is not just our economic relations that are involved in the Japanese-American partnership. Our two nations are also political allies, sharing the same commitments to democracy and the peaceful preservation of an open world society. As you are well aware, Japan has been the most faithful member of the U.S. allies in supporting the U.S. in Iranian hostages, Afghanistan and Poland. The closest friendly relations with the U.S. being the pivotal importance for Japan, the Japanese Government is committed to play a role conducive to the status which Japan has attained. Not only do we cooperate as partners, exchange goods, influence each other artistically, and join each other in common adventures of science, scholarship and the frontiers of the human mind and spirit. We also share values which give meaning to our lives. We need each other because we have so much to offer each other.

Last month, when Japan's Grand Kabuki was on its very successful tour of New York, Knoxville and Washington, I was deeply gratified by the enthusiastic responseindeed, the standing ovations-that American audiences gave this unique Japanese art form. The stories were unfamiliar, the gestures and their meanings were exotic, as was the music, yet tens of thousands of Americans were enraptured. They recognized the universal values that unite the human race

23767 and are at the core of both Japanese and American culture.

The stimulating articles on Japanese culture by the recent New York Times were captioned "Culture of Japan blossoming in America" and "Things Japanese Excite Americans' Imagination," It reports "the reason given for why Japanese culture has captured the American imagination range from Japanese economic might to the success of James Clabell's "Shogun."

The tremendous success of Grand Kabuki can be seen against this background.

The first generation of Japanese Americans, your ancestors, would have been pleased and proud of those hours of deep sharing.

Now that the relationship between· our two nations has attained the level of maturity and can properly be viewed in the global perspective, the bonds of friendship across the Pacific will be further strengthened with the intertwining of political, economical and cultural threads.

May I conclude my address by once again expressing my appreciation of your contributions over the past decades to the ever closer U.S.-Japan friendship and extending my very best wishes for your continued success.e

MARITIME SAFETY ACT, H.R. 7038

HON. WALTER B. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA



• Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, shortly before the district work period, I introduced legislation, H.R. 7038, to promote maritime safety on the high seas and navigable waters of the United States. This legislation is the result of extensive hearings and investigations conducted by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries during the 97th Congress.

Two major marine casualties, the disappearance of the SS Poet in October 1980 and the sinking of the semisubmersible drilling vessel the Ocean Ranger in February 1982 have prompted the introduction of this measure. It is my hope that we can receive substantive input from the administration and the marine industry on the concepts put forth, and refine them for enactment during the next Congress.

The first part of the bill is a result of our hearing on the Ocean Ranger. When this vessel sank on February 14, killing 85 men, it was operating without the legally required certificate of inspection issued by the Coast Guard. Although the company was aware the certificate of inspection had expired, the Ocean Ranger continued to drill off the coast of Newfoundland for almost 2 months. The only penalty under present law for operating without a certificate of inspection is a $500 fine-hardly a financial burden on a vessel leased for approximately $100,000 per day.

23768 The second part of H.R. 7038 stems

from our hearings on the SS Poet. The SS Poet was a 522-foot cargo vessel, which was carrying 13,500 tons of corn and a crew of 34 men when it departed Philadelphia, Pa. on October 24, 1980. At some unknown time after departure, on its way to Port Said, Egypt, the SS Poet disappeared without a trace. The owner of the SS Poet did not notify the U.S. Coast Guard of his concern for the safety of his vessel and crew until he had not heard from the vessel for a full10 days. With such a delayed notice there was scarce opportunity for the Coast Guard to assist the vessel if it had been in danger. Earlier notice by the owner to the Coast Guard may have alerted the Coast Guard in time to locate and assist the vessel.

Subsequent to the hearings on these two tragic incidents, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee staff studied present laws and procedures in order to determine whether changes or additions to the present laws might improve maritime safety and help to prevent similar tragic accidents from occurring in the future. H.R. 7038 is a product of these studies.

H.R. 7038 is basically comprised of three sections. The first section imposes stricter requirements and penalties on shipowners, agents, or operators who operate a vessel without a valid certificate of inspection. The second section imposes a notification requirement on a shipowner, agent, or operator to report to the U.S. Coast Guard if more than 48 hours have elapsed since the owner, agent, or operator has heard from the vessel. The master is also required to report to the owner every 48 hours. Only those required to report to the U.S.-flag merchant vessel location filing system <USMER> are covered by this section. However, any vessel owner who has reason to believe his vessel is imperiled is required to notify the Coast Guard. The third section of H.R. 7038 allows the Coast Guard to investigate and act upon acts of incompetency committed by any licensed officers on vessels of the United States.

Throughout the proposed bill, civil penalties for violations of the certificate of inspection requirements are increased to match more appropriately the penalty costs with the value of today's dollar. Communication requirements between the vessel owner, master, and the U.S. Coast Guard are also proposed on the basis of new present day communications capabilities. H.R. 7038, therefore, updates some of the marine safety laws to meet today's marine environment.

The intent of H.R. 7038 is to improve the marine safety environment without imposing onerous burdens upon the industry. The law is written in a manner which will require proper oversight of a vessel's well-being and

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS which will include adequate enforceable civil penalty provisions. However, the notice and reporting requirements are not complicated or time consuming and the penalty sections are flexible.

As chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, I look forward to waorking with the administration, industry representatives, and other interested maritime groups on this bill, and I expect that progress will be made toward the betterment of marine safety throughout the world.e

REGULATORY REFORM ACT

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, with the controversies caused by issues which lend themselves to partisan rhetoric, we certainly must not overlook the long-range significance of regulatory reform.

Basically, this subject is above partisanship. Most Americans would subscribe to the principle that the less cumbersome the bureaucracy, the better.

Therefore, I call the attention of the Members to an article by Senator PAUL LAxALT on the need to enact legislation called for in the Regulatory Reform Act. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Aug.

24, 19821 DoN'T DELAY BIPARTISAN REGULATORY

REFORM <By Paul Laxalt)

During all the activity on tax and budget bills, an important bipartisan legislative effort in our campaign against inflation and against increasing consumer prices has been quietly moving forward. Unfortunately, enactment of this legislation, known as the Regulatory Reform Act, may be threatened by delay in House action on this bill as this session of Congress nears its end. Such a delay is not in the best interests of this country, and everyone should urge his congressional representative to help move this bill now.

Under the sponsorship of Senators Patrick Leahy, William Roth, Thomas Eagleton. myself, and 77 other senators, the Senate in March unanimously (94-0) passed the Regulatory Reform Act. This measure enhances our efforts to secure cleaner air and water, safe workplaces, and the like, while reducing the economic excesses of federal regulation which fuel inflation. The act achieves this by modifying the regulatory process to produce more effective regulation-regulation that will be more certain to accomplish important public goals without unnecessary economic burdens.

Since the American people strongly support regulatory reform, every sensible politician must support it. Yet legislation to achieve such reform involves complicated and highly technical issues of law and statutory drafting.

Senators Leahy, Roth, Eagleton, and I hold the relevant leadership positions on the committees responsible for regulatory

September 15, 1982 reform legislation. Together, we grappled with the important details of regulatory reform. After fourteen months of drafting, revision, and compromise, we came up with a balanced package of procedural changes which we, and as it turned out the rest of our Senate colleagues, concluded was a common-sense approach to regulatory reform.

We wrote provisions in the Regulatory Reform Act that will require agencies to publicly evaluate their regulatory proposals in terms of what their likely good and bad effects will be. This not only involves the public in rule-making, but ensures that regulations will be publicly justified by what they can realistically be expected to achieve. To make agencies more accountable, we provided a limited presidential and judicial oversight of the process, circumscribed by the need to avoid endless delays and to preserve congressionally mandated policies. Finally, the full Senate added a provision to allow Congress to review agency rules.

After the Senate passed the measure, House Speaker O'Neill said he had every intention of bringing the House regulatory reform bill <HR 746) to the House floor. I applaud the Speaker's commitment to continue this bipartisan effort. Yet time is running short in this Congress to make good on this commitment. Only a few short weeks remain after the August recess before Congress adjourns for the elections. Acknowledgment of his support of this bill to Congress is now essential.

Enactment of this legislation will require that the House preserve the balanced approach of the consensus Senate bill. True bipartisan regulatory reform will die if the Speaker merely gives the House members the opportunity to vote for a watered-down regulatory reform bill just before the elections, and then presents the Senate with a weak House bill on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

From my perspective, rank-and-file House members of both parties want to be a part of the outstanding effort represented by the Senate bill, a bill carefully developed over the past four years by two administrations and bipartisan work in both houses of Congress. They recognize that, with the costs of regulation now estimated at over $100 billion a year-inflating already high consumer prices-the American public cannot afford further congressional delay.

[Paul Laxalt, Republican Senator from Nevada, is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform.Je

A TRIBUTE TO MR. LAWRENCE R.BENTLEY

HON. JERRY LEWIS OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1982, the Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Dairy Committee of California are honoring Mr. Lawrence R. Bentley as "Special Dairy Award Winner" of the year. We would like to take this opportunity to join with the chamber and the dairy committee in honoring Mr. Bentley and commend him to the House of

September 15, 1982 Representatives for his devoted community leadership and service.

Larry Bentley began his 54-year career in the dairy industry in 1928. He worked for Adohr on a home delivery route with a horse and wagon in Beverly Hills, Calif., for an excellent salary of $135 per month. Work began at 2:45 a.m. when Mr. Bentley would load the milk onto his wagon. Since the horse knew the milk route as well as Mr. Bentley did, he could often doze from the Adohr Creamery until his horse stopped in front of the first customer's house. The animal was very well behaved and did not really need to be driven. When the horse felt Mr. Bentley leave the wagon with a milk carrier full of milk, it would stop until he returned. If Larry served three or four houses in a row on foot, the horse would follow by Mr. Bentley's voice commands.

In 1932, Mr. Bentley was transferred to Westwood where part of the University of California had just been built. There Mr. Bentley delivered milk in a 1930 Model A Ford truck because houses were too far apart for the conventional use of horse and wagon.

Mr. Bentley and another Adohr driver were the first LA milkmen from a major milk company to deliver milk in the daylight hours.

In 1935 Mr. Bentley became a member of the Creamery Yellow Dog Society whch is a play group for the dairy industry. he organized the first "Dairy Fieldman" group in the Los Angeles area, which consisted of field representatives from each LA area creamery. Mr. Bentley was the first dairy chairman for the March of Dimes from 1956 to 1961 and 1 year, with the Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Benson, as a guest, raised approximately $9,000 for that charity.

From 1949 to 1976 he was in charge of the dairy industry milking parlor at the Los Angeles County Fair and often put on cow milking, butter churning, and milk drinking contests there and at other county fairs.

Mr. Bentley was the southern director of the California Dairy Industry Association and twice served as master of ceremonies for the southern section dairy princess contest. On many occasions Mr. Bentley was the chairman of the dairy roadside appearance program and for the dairy milk flavor clinic.

From retail milk sales, Mr. Bentley went on to be a foreman, then promoted to supervisor, and finally went into production and quality control. On January 2, 1973, Mr. Bentley went to work for Alta-Dena Dairy on their quality control and has been there ever since.

In the 54 years that Mr. Bentley has been in the dairy industry, he has never missed a payday.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recog

nize Mr. Lawrence R. Bentley today and commend him to the House of Representatives for his countless contributions to our society and the dairy industry. He is a truly fine individual who has in countless ways enhanced his community through his hours of selfless civic service.e

POLITICS AND THE PIPELINE

HON. LARRY McDONALD OF GEORGIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 • Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, our President is correct in his stand against the Soviet gas pipeline to Europe, and our European friends are wrong in their opposition. Helping the Soviets with this pipeline does not make any sense economically or from a security point of view. The Soviets can, and will, shut off this gas supply for political reasons as they have used trade as a political weapon on previous occasions. Loaning money to the Soviets to complete this pipeline is just throwing good money after bad, to say nothing of Western participation in a project being built partially by slave labor, which includes political dissidents and those imprisoned for religious beliefs. Mr. John O'Sullivian recently summed up all these reasons in a "personal view" column in the London Daily Telegraph of August 23, 1982. I commend it to the attention of my colleagues who may still feel the President is wrong on this issue. [From the Daily Telegraph, Aug. 23, 19821

POLITICS AND THE PIPELINE

Curiouser and curiouser grows the dispute over the Siberian natural gas pipeline. All the politicians and commentators in Westem Europe are for it, all the arguments against it. It is as if the Continent had become one vast Flat Earth Society.

To recap: First, the project is justified on the grounds of creating employment. But if we think it sensible to subsidise job creation, why not subsidise ourselves directly instead of going through the Soviet middleman? As things stand many of the jobs created will be in Siberia rather than Sunderland. And the Russians rather than ourselves will have the finished product.

Secondly, Western Europe is increasing its energy dependence on and thus its political vulnerability towards the Soviet Union far more than I suggested in an earlier column. When the pipeline is completed, the share of Europe's total energy needs (gas, coal and oil) supplied by the Soviet bloc will amount to something like one-third. I also stated last month that the Soviet Union had cut off key energy supplies for political reasons on three occasions since 1945. A correspondent corrects me. He points out that, if threats to cut off supplies are also taken into account, the accurate figure is eight times.

Those occasions were: in 1948 against Yugoslavia, in 1961 against Albania, in 1956 against Israel and Hungary, in 1962 against China, in 1968 against Czechoslovakia, in

23769 1980 when the U.S.S.R. threatened Europe and Japan with the loss of Soviet fuel supplies if they supported United States sanctions over Afghanistan <which, significantly, they failed to do> and, finally, last year when the Politburo threatened to cut off Poland's oil supply unless Solidarity were crushed.

Thirdly, the pipeline is a vast foreign aid project whereby a consortium of European banks and companies will provide a wellarmed and hostile power with governmentguaranteed low-interest loans. This makes no sense at all. This is also worth bearing in mind when you next hear one of the European heads of government criticise the Reagan Administration for policies that keep interest rates high. Nothing is better designed to push up interest rates than borrowing $15 billion at 15 per cent, from the capital markets in order to lend it at a mere 8 per cent, to the Soviets. Yet that is what the French and West German Governments are doing.

Finally, the project's advocates overlook various alternatives which lack the political drawbacks of the Siberian pipeline, such as: Norway's natural gas reserves, American coal reserves <which could supply at least one third of West Europe's energy needs). And even the Nigerian pipeline which could absorb capital and engineering skills at least equal to those required by the Siberian pipeline.

What arguments are there on the other side? Only the petulant complaint that, if President Reagan is opposed to the pipeline, what right has he to sell the Russians grain. With the substance of this criticism I agree. But the European governments support the grain sales in public. If Mr. Reagan is inconsistent and only half-right, they are splendidly consistent and wholly wrong. And anyway, to slit one's wrists because Mr. Reagan has shot himself in the foot is hardly repartee.

In short, the West Europeans have risen above politics, economics, strategy and simple prudence in their decision to go ahead with the pipeline. What inspires them? Is it perhaps an idealistic vision that commerce will lead to peace and international understanding?

Their idealism, if so, will have to be armour-plated in view of the growing evidence that slave labour, including political prisoners, and Vietnamese indentured labour are being used in the pipeline's construction.

The International Association for Human Rights, based in West Germany, announced in June that they had received reports from contacts in the Soviet Union that more and more prisoners sentenced to hard labour were being used to construct the Siberian gas pipeline.

"A number of well-known political prisoners," the statement went on, "have likewise been forced into labouring on <it>." Among them were a psychiatrist, a Ukrainian writer, two Civil Rights activists and two Baptist ministers.

Hard labour camps have been set up along the route of the pipeline, prisoners are housed in wagons which offer little protection from the elements in areas where winter temperatures reach lows of -30 to -40 degrees centigrade, they are transported daily to and from the construction sites under the watch of guard dogs.

How do we know that such reports are true? It is, of course, impossible to be absolutely certain when dealing with a totalitarian society which attempts to enforce com-

23770 plete control of news and information. But there are certain common sense guidelines.

To begin with, the use of slave labour in major construction projects is quite standard in the Soviet Union. In the construction of the White Sea Canal in the 1930s, over a quarter of a million slave workers perished. And as late as the 1970s, concentration camp labour was employed to build the Baikal Amur railway along the Chinese border.

Even so, the Soviet Union is still short of labour for such projects. Last year, Mr. Brezhnev delivered a speech in which he stated that the U.S.S.R. needed 400,000 additional workers to develop new oil and gas fields in Western Siberia.

This perhaps explains the import of Vietnamese labour into the Soviet Union. The Soviets naturally argue that importing Vietnamese labour is a foreign aid programme of technical training, that the workers are well-paid, and that they live in pleasant climates where "melons and watermelons grow" (lsVESTIA).

Reports by refugees and some letters from concentration camps, where former South Vietnamese army officers are "re-educated," tell a different story. These suggest that such prisoners are being, in effect, transported to Siberia for hard labour.

Again, are such stories from such sources believable? An argument on what point is now raging within the American State Department. But it is worth remembering that similar reports by Cambodian refugees about the genocide in their country in 1975, widely disregarded at the time, turned out to be the plain truth.

Of course, there are civilian Vietnamese going to the U.S.S.R. as well. Is their departure voluntary? Some Western diplomats believe so, arguing that Siberia is actually quite attractive compared to the spartan conditions of Vietnam now that the American oppressors have been driven out.

But what are the conditions to which they are going? They are separated from their families for two periods of three years, and they receive only 40 per cent, of an already low wage, the remainder going to the Soviet Government in payment of the Vietnamese war-debt of $1.6 billion.

I am certainly prepared to believe in the hideousness of Communist Vietnam. But if its citizens prefer Siberia, separation from their families and very low wages to remaining at home, conditions there must be, quite literally, unbelievably bad. You may prefer, as I do, to believe that the Vietnamese who go to the U.S.S.R. do not do so of their own free will.e

THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT

HON.BERNARDJ.D~ OF NEW JERSEY



e Mr. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honor of participating in Labor Day festivities in the borough of South Plainfield, N.J., commemorating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the South Plainfield Volunteer Fire Department.

The borough is most proud of this dedicated force and rightly so. Begin-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ning with just a hose cart that had to be pulled by hand for several years, the company established a tradition of outstanding community service that has been maintained throughout its 75-year history.

Today, the volunteer company houses eight engines, including an aerial ladder truck, two power wagons, and several pumpers.

Most important, however, are the individuals who volunteer their time, their skills, and their courage to protect the security and safety of their fellow residents.

The members of the South Plainfield Volunteer Fire Department-past and present-symbolize the best in community service and commitment. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to these individuals and the members of the volunteer fire companies across the Nation who do so much to enhance our quality of life.

On the occasion of their 75th anniversary, and on behalf of our congressional district, I would like to offer the members of the South Plainfield Volunteer Fire Department our humble and profound thanks for a job well done.e

REPORTER CLOSING A BLOW TO OUR COMMUNITY

HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN OF CALIFORNIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, On August 25, 1982, the Los Angeles Reporter, a weekly newspaper in my district for nearly a half century, published its last issue. The death of a community institution such as theReporter is an event of major importance to the people whose lives it touches. The following statement, which reflects my personal feelings, was printed on the front page of the final Reporter.

Though I have never had any financial interest or managerial role in the Waxman Reporter Publications, these papers have played a role in my life since earliest childhood.

As a youngster, I took tremendous pride in what my late Uncle, AI S. Waxman, and my Aunt Ruth had accomplished for our community. Many of my own feelings about the Democratic Party and progressive government came directly either from the paper or from my aunt and uncle.

The Reporter Publications began in Boyle Heights as the "Eastside Journal." In those days the Los Angeles Times was not the first-rate, balanced, nationally recognized paper it is today. Years ago, the Times was a narrow, partisan, reactionary publication whose news columns were often as blatantly slanted as its editorials. Most of the other papers were no better. My uncle stood up against the Times and every other rightwing force-no matter how big.

The Waxman Publications were resolute in support of the Democratic Party, the

September 15, 1982 trade union movement (in a town which was known as ferociously anti-labor), ethnic minorities-Blacks, Jews, and Latinos-who were the victims of an openly prejudiced power elite. My aunt, Ruth Waxman Faierman, worked on the paper for an incredible 48 years. At one time or another, she personally handled every task required to publish the paper.

After my uncle's untimely passing, many were skeptical about the future of the Reporter Publications. Their doubts were unjustified. As long as was humanly possible, Ruth Waxman Faierman saw to it that the paper came out every week. She maintained the high standards she and my uncle had held to all through the years. The news columns were open to every charity, every political group, and every candidate with a legitimate message for the community. Elected officials like myself were given free space each week to report to our constituents.

Over the years many voters came to count on the Reporter Publications for election advice. Everyone knew that candidates endorsed by my uncle or aunt, or ballot propositions approved by them, reflected their values of integrity, compassion and commitment to human rights.

The demise of the Reporter Publications creates a vacuum which will probably never be filled. Without the Reporter it will be almost impossible for local officeholders, churches, temples, and neighborhood merchants to communicate with people in a limited geographical area. The metropolitan dailies will not print the schedule of bingo games for the City of Hope, nor will they announce the opening of a new store on Fairfax Avenue. Certainly, they will pay no attention to such neighborhood problems as an unsafe intersection or homeowners who feel a business establishment is violating their rights to peace and privacy.

I salute Ruth Faierman for all she has done for our community over a half century. I wish her and her husband, Neach Faierman, good health. I very much hope that my aunt will continue to be actively involved in community affairs. We all stand to benefit enormously from her sincerity, integrity, intelligence and talent.e

NFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION STRIKE

HON. PHILUP BURTON OF CALIFORNIA



e Mr. PHILLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware there is a very real possibility that the football season might be interrupted by a strike this year. I think we can all agree that this would be most unfortunate. It is my great hope that the NFL and the NFL Players Association will be successful in arriving at a satisfactory collective bargaining agreement.

Bills currently pending before Congress dealing with an antitrust exemption for the NFL has already involved us in some of the issues facing professional football today. I am confident that we will not act hastily in this area especially when the league and the

September 15, 1982 union are involved in intense negotiations.

I am including in the RECORD today a recent article concerning the problems faced by the players and the league.

The article written by Dave Kindred appeared in the Washington Post on August 20, 1982:

PLANTATION MENTALITY NOT HELPING NFL OWNERS

If the pro football players go on strike, it is the owners' fault. The owners have botched this. Call them arrogant, call them imperious, call them fools.

The 28 owners have a money machine cranking out millions of dollars, even billions. Yet these totalitarians who would take urine samples of players, who would fine players for shaking hands, who would deny players the right to work where they want to-these owners would throw sand into the gears of their money machine before they would do the right thing for the players who make the machine turn so smoothly.

The right thing is to treat the players as valued employes with legitimate complaints. As baseball owners learned in a senseless half-summer of a strike, there is nothing to be gained any more by treating professional athletes as indentured servants who ought to be grateful for any scraps from the massah's table. The courts have ruled for players, and against leagues, in virtually every freedom-issue case over the last decade. The tide is running against the plantation owners, and they'll be in over their heads soon if they don't do the right thing.

The right thing at this moment is to get back to the negotiating table with the players union representatives. Out of obstructionism, the owners' negotiators refuse to meet the union people at a training camp site. If they have to meet at midfield during a Redskins scrimmage in Carlisle, the owners' men should do it. By the petty fining of last week, by the refusal even to negotiate, the football owners are repeating the baseball mistake of welding the players' union into a clenched fist.

Once upon a time, the football players may have been divided about a strike. Two months ago, they may not have been sold on Ed Garvey's percentage-of-gross concept. But the owners offered the players no alternative plan. And now the sense-at this typewriter, anyway-is that the players are willing to strike in support of Garvey's plan if for no other reason than it is the only one anybody has proposed.

The players properly perceive management's refusal to offer a realistic plan as evidence the owners believe the union will crumble on its own. Such perception has made the union stronger. By doing nothing, the owners did a lot-for the union.

It is a fact, of course, that the owners have submitted a counterproposal to Garvey's idea. that the players should get 55 percent of all money taken in. But because the owners consider Garvey's plan an insult, they replied in kind. The owners' proposal is a microscopically improved version of the current compensation system that has shackled players to their teams and kept salaries below the levels to which they would rise in a free market.

The owners should come to the bargaining table with a new proposal. Somewhere between Garvey's percentage-of-gross idea. and the chaos of total freedom <even we romantics acknowledge the need for some re-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS straints in sports), there ought to be a middle ground.

On a shelf in Garvey's office, there is a foot-square block of stone.

Etched into the stone is a percentage sign. Chances are, although Garvey is too stub

born to admit it, he would be happy to hear a. proposal from the owners that would enable him to turn that stone around and carve a dollar sign in the other side. And chances are the owners, who have acknowledged that the players are underpaid, would go a long way with any proposal that raised salaries without tying the raises to a fixed percentage of gross.

So why doesn't someone suggest something?

At the moment, the National Football League doesn't suggest anything because it has a leadership crisis. Every time it goes into court, it comes out a loser. It lost every round in federal court to AI Davis and then, in a demonstration of unmitigated gall, went to the Congress of the United States asking for legislation to reverse that court's decision.

Earlier, the foundering lords of football missed their opportunity to divide the players' union by not giving dissident players an alternative proposal before the union's March convention. Lately, the league commissioner, Pete Rozelle, has come to Congress with an antitrust exemption bill that, if passed would be followed, he said, by expansion of the league.

Rozelle has admitted that such expansion teams were "dangling'' before the eyes of influential senators. This is the sort of dangling that politicians interpret as a payoff. You give me my new law, we give you a football team. Rozelle smoothly denied any such connection.

The commissioner was not so smooth Monday on Capitol Hill. Under fire from Strom Thurmond, the crustly old South Carolina Republican whose state neither has nor lusts for pro football, Rozelle said the league needed legislation because it would be impossible to draw up guidelines on when a. team could leave a. city.

You couldn't pin it on how they have done financially, Rozelle began.

"They would . . . That can be juggled. A team can arrange its figures in a. way to show losses for several straight years."

Had Garvey stuck bamboo shoots under Rozelle's shining nails, he could not have elicited a. more helpful quotation. It long has been Garvey's contention that owners aren't telling the whole truth about money, and now comes Rozelle saying figures "can be juggled.''

With leadership so bewildered it gives this kind of comfort to its adversary, the NFL is headed for a strike that doesn't have to happen. It is time for the owners to make a conciliatory gesture to the players, to offer a plan that is more than a. sarcastic reply to an insult from Garvey.

They offer free agency to all players after three seasons. Garvey says free agency won't work because teams will not bid on players, there being <in his estimation) no economic incentive to win under the lazy comforts of the NFL's share-the-wealth socialism. To guarantee that free agency works, Garvey should demand binding arbitration contract disputes; if a. player asks for $500,000 a. year and the team offers $200,000, a. neutral arbitrator should decide the issue.

There should be no compensation rules at all. The right of first refusal, under which the NBA and NHL work, is safeguard

23771 enough if a team wants to keep its quality players.

All this may not increase the salaries of undistinguished right guat·ds as much as Garvey's 55 percent plan would. But with free agency, right of first refusal and binding arbitration, football players soon enough would be paid what they're worth.e

HONORING MR. FRED TROOST, DAIRYMAN OF THE YEAR




• Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize one of the truly fine men in my congressional district who is a shining example of the American success story, Mr. Fred Troost.

A native of Iowa, Mr. Troost moved to Artesia, Calif., where he began his dairy business with 120 milking cows. Through hard work and perseverance, his business grew to 800 cows on 130 acres in Mira Lorna, Calif., where it has become a family enterprise.

A community leader, Mr. Troost has been a member of various local civic organizations. He served as president of the board of education of Bellflower Christian Schools for 2 years and served an additional 6 years as a member of the board. Mr. Troost served 9 years on the board of education of Ontario Christian School, 3 as president. He devoted many hours in helping the elderly through his service on the Board of Inland Home for the Aged where he was chairman for 2 years. He was a member of the city council of Dairy Valley, now known as Cerritos, for 6 years, and served 1 year as mayor. One of the highlights of his public service career was working as mayor of Artesia for 1 year. In addition, Mr. Troost was on the city council of Artesia for 6 years.

His leadership in dairy-related organizations has greatly benefited the dairy industry. Mr. Troost was a member of the board and past chairman of the Milk Producers Council in Artesia and Ontario for the past 15 years. On the State level, he served as a member of the board of the League of California Milk Producers for 8 years, 2 years as vice chairman. Under the Gonsalves Milk Pooling Act, Mr. Troost administered the law as chairman and member of the California Producer Review Board. He was State representative for the Animal Health Committee and representative to the Milk Advisory Board dealing with animal health research.

Mr. Troost and his lovely wife, Anne, are the parents of 6 children and the grandparents of 15.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Mr. Fred Troost today and com-

23772 mend him to the House of Representatives for his countless contributions to all segments of our society. He is living proof that the American dream is alive and well in our country today.e

ALL THE UMP TRIED TO DO WAS CALL A PERFECT GAME

HON. TOM BEVILL OF ALABAMA



• Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents from the Fourth District of Alabama, Mr. G. V. Timmons, of Carrollton, Ala., recently sent me an article from the Birmingham PostHerald, which I would like to share with my colleagues.

It deals with Little League Baseball, but also has an important lesson for all of us in how to live life.

ALL THE UMP TRIED To Do WAS CALL A PERFECT GAME

<By Dave Johnson> EVANSVILLE, IND.- During a Little League

game in Evansville recently, fans and umpires got into a shouting match over some questionable calls during a game between two teams of 9- to 12-year-olds.

"It was pretty ugly," one witness said. "The kids heard some pretty filthy language."

What happened to Donald Jensen 10 years ago this baseball season still serves as a reminder of what can happen when winning becomes more important than anything else.

Jensen was struck in the head by a thrown bat while umpiring a boy's Little League game in Terre Haute.

He continued to work the game, but afterward a doctor order him into the hospital for observation. While there, Jensen wrote the following letter.

"Dear parent of a Little Leaguer: "I am an umpire. I don't do it for a living,

but only on Saturdays and Sundays for fun. " ... I've played the game, coached it and

watched it. But, somehow, nothing takes the place of umpiring. Maybe it's because I feel deep down that I'm providing a fair chance for all the kids to play the game without disagreements and arguments.

"With all the fun I've had, there still is something that bothers me about my job. Some of you folks don't understand why I'm there. Some of you feel I'm there to exert authority over your son. For that reason, you often yell at me when I make a mistake, or encourage your son to say things that hurt my feelings.

"How many of you really understand that I try to be perfect? I try not to make mistakes. I don't want your son to feel he got a bad deal from an umpire.

"Yet, no matter how hard I try, I can't be perfect.

"I've counted the number of calls I made in a six-inning game today. The total number of decisions, whether on bases and balls or safes and outs, was 146.

"I tried my best to get them all right, but I'm sure I missed some. When I figured my percentage on paper, I could have missed eight calls and still got about 95 percent of the calls right. In most occupations, that percentage would be considered excellent. If

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS I were in school, I would receive an 'A' for sure. But your demands are higher than that.

"Let me tell you more about my game today.

". . . There was one real close call that ended the game. A runner for the home team was trying to steal home to a passed ball. The catcher chased the ball down and threw to the pitcher covering the plate. The pitcher made the tag and I called the runner out.

"As I was taking off my equipment and getting ready to leave, I overheard one of the parents comment: 'It's to bad the kids have to lose games because of rotten umpires. That was one of lousiest calls I've ever seen.'

"Later, at the concession stand, a couple of the kids were telling their friends, 'Boy, the umpires were lousy today. They lost the game for us.'

". . . The purpose of Little League is to teach baseball skills to young men. Obviously, a team which does not play well in a. given game, yet is given the opportunity to blame that loss on an umpire for one call or two, is being given the chance to take all responsibility for the loss from its shoulders.

"A parent or adult leader who permits the young player to blame his failures on an umpire, regardless of the quality of the umpire, is doing the worst kind of injustice to that youngster. Rather than learning responsibility, such an attitude is fostering an improper outlook toward the ideals of the game itself. This irresponsibility is bound to carry over to future years.

"As I sit here writing this letter, I am no longer as upset as I was this afternoon. This afternoon, I wanted to quit umpiring. But, fortunately, my wife reminded me of another situation that occurred last week.

"I was umpiring behind the plate for a pitcher who pantomimed his displeasure at any call on a borderline pitch that was not in his team's favor. One could sense he wanted the crowd to realize he was a fine, talented player who was doing his best to get along, but that I was a. black-hearted villain who was working against him.

"This kid continued for two innings, while at the same time yelling at his own players who dared to make a. mistake. For two innings, the manager watched this. When the kid returned to the dugout to bat in the top of the third, the manager called him aside.

"In a. loud enough voice that I was able to overhear, the lecture went like this: 'Listen, son, it is time you make a. decision. You can be an umpire, an actor, or a. pitcher. But you can only be one a.t a. time when you are playing for me. Right now, it is your job to pitch. And you are basically doing a. lousy job.

"Leave the acting to the actors, the umpiring to the umpires, or you won't do any pitching here. Now, what is it going to be?"

"The kid chose the pitching route and went on to win the game. When the game was over, the kid followed me to my car. Fighting his hardest to keep back the tears, he apologized for his actions and thanked me for umpiring his game. He said he had learned a lesson that he would never forget.

"I can't help but wonder how many more fine young men are missing their chance to develop into outstanding ballplayers because their parents encourage them to spend time umpiring, rather than working harder to play the game as it should be played."

The following morning, Donald Jensen died of a brain concussion.•

September 15, 1982 VALERY LERNER

HON. JAMES L. NELLIGAN OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. NELLIGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out to my colleagues the plight of Valery Lerner, a Soviet Jew who has been repressed by the totalitarian regime in the U.S.S.R.

Lerner's parents and brother emigrated to Israel in 1971. At that time, Lerner and his wife and son also decided to leave the U.S.S.R. for Israel in order to keep the Lerner family together. During this time, Lerner was employed as an engineer and economist in the finance and planning department of a tool factory. He resigned from this position when he and his wife applied for an exit visa to Israel in order to avoid a rejection based on the confidential nature of the position.

In 1976, after waiting the required 5 years from his resignation date at the factory job, Lerner and his wife applied for a permit to go to Israel. They were denied the permit.

Eleven years have passed since Lerner and his wife began attempts to emigrate to Israel. Lerner's numerous appeals to various Soviet authorities have been in vain, and he and his wife have since been dismissed from their jobs.

The situation for Soviet Jewry is desperate. Along with 46 of my colleagues, I have joined the 97th Congressional Class for Soviet Jewry, which aims to recognize the plight of Prisoners of Conscience who are seeking to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Despite the fact that the Soviets are a signatory to the Helsinki accords, they have been flagrant in their violation of human rights. I believe it is important to bring this tragic case to the attention of my colleagues.e

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHERS DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. ANTHONY TOBY MOFFETT OF CONNECTICUT



• Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague MERv DYMALLY is today introducing legislation essential to the future development of American technology. I am honored to be joining Representative DYMALL Y, and my Connecticut colleague in the Senate, CHRIS DoDD, in this effort to increase science and mathematics literacy in our Nation.

The National Science and Mathematics Teachers Development Act is

September 15, 1982 designed to promote such literacy through providing continuing education opportunities for secondary school science and math teachers who need to improve current skills and qualifications in those areas. I have heard from scores of school administrators in Connecticut on the desperate need for qualified science and math teachers in our State's secondary schools. It is reported that some 50 percent of the Nation's newly hired secondary school science and math teachers are not qualified to teach in these areas. Without such qualified teachers, how can science and math literacy be conveyed to our childrenour hope for a future of increased national productivity and economic security?

The time to prepare for the future is now. Reports of the growing science gap in the United States are legion and we must begin to reverse this ominous downward trend now. The link between an educated populace and a healthy economy is clear. Ironically, the administration is cutting back on support for public education and research, exacerbating our future ability to cm pete in the world technological market.

When I testified before the Postsecondary Education Subcommittee this spring on the administration's proposed education cuts, I noted the warnings sounded by two eminent members of the science and education communities. I think it is worth repeating their remarks today, for they have a very significant bearing on the need to promote technological literacy in our secondary schools and institutions of higher education. Columbia University President Michael I. Sovern stated, in the New York Times Magazine <February 7, 1982):

Our foreign trade pattern resembles that of an underdeveloped country: we export raw materials in abundance and import more manufactured goods than we sell abroad. All this cannot be isolated from the fact that over the past 15 years, Japan and West Germany have doubled their output of scientists and engineers.

Tolerance of this erosion of our ability to compete in the world runs counter both to the Reagan agenda and to a long and wise tradition. Since World War II, the Government has pursued a bipartisan policy rooted in the recognition that the nation's wellbeing depends on a national commitment to the quality of its universities. Federal support produced the rapid growth of graduate schools and the consequent surge to international pre-eminence of American university research. The federal government has recognized that scientific and technological competitions with other nations are won or lost on American campuses.

D. Allen Bromley, a nuclear physicist and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put the issue this way, in the Hartford Courant <January 27, 1982):

We have the urgent problem of developing scientific literacy on the part of our citizen-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ry. Over 80 percent of our citizens receive their last exposure, if any, to mathematics and science during their high schools years. In a society, such as ours, of growing technological sophistication where the questions of consequence increasingly have scientific and technological aspects, if our public cannot at least appreciate the nature of these issues, quite apart from contributing to their resolution, they inevitably will tend to become alienated from the society.

It is clear to me that the pressing need in the Nation for skilled workers requires a solution at the high school level; we must staff our schools with teachers qualified in the science and mathematics areas. By providing teachers with full-time summer workshops and part-time weekend yearly programs to improve educational skills in science and math, as today's legislation does, we will help insure a continuum of technological advancement in the U.S.

The health of our economy demands this response. The Dymally-Dodd legislation represent a wise investment in our future, one which will aid not only industrial productivity but our national security. The cost of this legislation is modest-an authorization level of $30 million in fiscal year 1984. Considering its potential, however, this investment could reap vast cost-savings in future years. The Defense Science Board Task Force has concluded that a continuing shortage of skilled labor is a major factor in the spiraling costs and increased leadtime required to complete defense contracts.

So let us move now to secure technological literacy among our citizenry in the years to come. The National Science and Mathematics Teachers Development Act is essential to this goal.e

PATRICIA A. HICKMAN

HON. IKE SKELTON OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, September 15, 1982

e Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate Patricia A. Hickman of Blue Springs, Mo., for being selected by the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, to receive the Secretary's Award for Excellence. This award is being presented at the 15th annual departmental awards ceremony to be held on September 14, 1982, in Washington, D.C.

Mrs. Hickman is a program analyst for the Federal Aviation Administration and has served that department outstandingly for 7 years. In her nomination summary, she has been called a self-starter with much initiative and her dedication to her work has increased the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region, in Kansas City, Mo.

23773 The Secretary's Award for Excel

lence is reserved for those employees whose performance not only exceeds normal requirements, but is outstanding and deserves special commendation. Certainly, I can think of no person better fitting this, description than Mrs. Hickman and I want her to know how proud we are that she is a Missourian.e

A TRIBUTE TO MR. WAYNE LYNCH



• Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1982 the Grayback District of the California Inland Empire Council, Boy Scouts of America is honoring Mr. S. Wayne Lynch as their distinguished citizen of the year. Congressmen GEORGE BROWN of California and I would like to take this opportunity to join with the Grayback District Boy Scouts in honoring Mr. Lynch and commend him to the House of Representatives for his devoted community leadership.

A native Californian, Wayne Lynch was born in Garden Grove, Calif. He attended Monmouth College, Ill., Western Union College, Iowa, and the University of Iowa, completing his education in the School of Business at the University of California at Los Angeles. He also did graduate work at the University of Southern California.

During World War II, Mr. Lynch served 3% years as a naval aviator. Following the war, he began his career with the Southern California Gas Co. in October 1945. He progressed through the company in various marketing assignments. From 1968 through 1972 he worked in land development for the parent company, Pacific Lighting Corp., returning to the Southern California Gas Co. as inland division manager.

An active community leader, Mr. Lynch has belonged to numerous organizations in the Inland Empire. His memberships include: Past president and chairman of the board of the San Bernardino Air Force Association; past president, San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce; board of directors, Executive Committee, president, Military Affairs Committee, Inland Action, Inc.; past director and Executive Committee member, Boy Scouts of America; past vice president, San Bernardino County Taxpayers' Association; board of directors, World Affairs Council; member, American Gas Association, and Pacific Coast Gas Association; advisory board, Bank of Redlands, founding president of San Bernardino Tournament of Roses Association, Inc.; cochairman, All-America City

23774 Committee and named one of the leading citizens in the Inland Empire Magazine for the past 2 years.

Mr. Lynch and his lovely wife, Gloria, are the parents of two daughters and one son.

Mr. Speaker, we take great pride in commending to our colleagues, Mr. S. Wayne Lynch, a friend and a truly fine individual who has, in countless ways, enhanced his community through hours of selfless civic service. With great respect we honor Mr. Lynch and commend him to the House of Representatives.•

THE WAR AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS

HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN OF CALIFORNIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Speaker, in the September 13 issue of Newsweek magazine, there appeared an in-depth article on drunk driving which is must reading for every concerned American. According to the reporters, 52,600 Americans have died at the hands of drunk drivers during the past 2 years-more than were killed in Vietnam in combat over 11 years. Over the past decade, a staggering one-quarter of 1 million Americans have perished on the Nation's highways as a result of drunk driving. On the average, about 3 Americans are killed and 80 injured by drunk drivers every hour of every day. Alcohol-related crashes are by far the single biggest killer of Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. The steps currently being undertaken in the several States and nationwide to combat this senseless slaughter on our highways is the subject of this excellent article which I should at this time like to submit for the RECORD.

THE WAR AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS

The horror of those seconds will forever haunt Cindy Ferguson. She was driving her three sons-the identical twins Tommy and Tony and her baby, Lee-to a party, when suddenly her Vega was smashed from behind. A tremendous explosion hurled her, Tony and Lee onto the street. Cindy raced back to the car and pulled Tommy's burning body from the wreck, throwing herself on him to smother the flames. A friend, Steve Willoughby, remained trapped inside, screaming, a halo of fire encircling his face. As Cindy lay there on top of her son, the other driver approached her. But when she pleaded for help, he staggered away.

Willoughby, 20, and Lee Ferguson, two, died on that Memphis street. Tommy, five, was in critical condition for six months with burns over 65 percent of his body. He has lost almost all use of his kidneys and most of his hearing. He has had 100 operations already and faces 14 years of reconstructive surgery.

The other driver suffered a broken nose. Despite at least seven drunk-driving arrests in four years, he had never spent a day in

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS jail. His 5- to 10-year sentence for seconddegree murder provided little solace for Mrs. Ferguson. But her nightmare was primarily responsible for Tennessee passing one of the toughest drunk-driving laws in the nationdespite concerns that it would overcrowd the courts and prisons. "I was more concerned," said state Sen. Curtis Person, its sponsor, "about the overcrowding of hospitals, morgues and cemeteries."

Drunk driving is a national epidemic, what one reformer calls America's "socially accepted form of murder" <chart, page 37). More Americans have died at the hands of drunk drivers during the past two years than were killed in Vietnam; on average, about three Americans are killed and 80 are injured by drunk drivers every hour of every day. The drunken slaughter over the past decade is a staggering one-quarter of a million Americans-the entire population of Rochester, N.Y. Safety experts say that one out of two Americans will be victimized by a drunk driver in his lifetime, hardly surprising when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration <NHTSA) contends that up to 10 percent of all drivers on weekend nights are legally intoxicated.

But finally, outraged Americans are trying to put an end to the carnage. In a major break with past public policy, which concentrated on highway-safety conditions and protective devices such as air bags, a coastto-coast crusade aims at getting drunk drivers themselves off the roads. A recent Gallup poll indicated that fully 77 percent of all Americans support mandatory prison sentences even for first-time offenders. President Reagan has declared the campaign a national priority, and Congress is considering bills that would award money to states that crack down.

FAILED EXPERIMENT

Already 27 state legislatures this year have passed their own versions of the toughest drunk-driving bill in the nation, and more legislation is pending in others. Twenty states have boosted the legal drinking age, reversing a Vietnam-era trend toward lower drinking ages that made alcohol-related crashes by far the single biggest killer of Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. In New Jersey the average number of persons killed annually by 18- to 20-yearold drivers climbed by 176 percent after the state lowered its drinking age to 18. "Statistics have shown us that kids can't handle alcohol," says New Jersey state Sen. C. Louis Bassano, sponsor of a bill to raise the drinking age to 21. "It's an experiment that has failed."

Liquor is so integrated into the nation's social and economic fabric that until recently, drinking and driving was an almost untouchable political issue. But the drunk driver who kills isn't usually the social drinker who has had one beer too many <box, page 36). The NHTSA reports that the average blood alcohol concentration of a drinking driver killed in a crash is .20-twice the rate for legal intoxication in most states. Still, judges, juries, prosecutors and legislators, most of whom drink socially, have tended to view the drunk driver with "there but for the grace of God, go I" sympathy (page 38). The result: loopholed laws that have been cumbersome to enforce, wholesale plea bargaining <California charged only 5,000 people with reckless driving in 1978, but permitted 80,000 drivers to plead guilty to it> and judgments of the lecture-and-slap-on-the-wrist variety (Idaho arrested 1,800 persons for drunk driving last year, convicted one-third of them and jailed

September 15, 1982 just two). Explains NHTSA administrator Raymond Peck, "The well-scrubbed father of four standing before the judge doesn't look anything like the falling-down drunk that was pulled out of the wreck."

TIME BOMBS

America's tacit acceptance of drinking and driving has the effect of loosing time bombs on the nation's highways. An example was a Georgia man who, after his 13th conviction for driving while drunk, was sentenced to just one year in prison. Thus, he was drunk and on the road again 20 months later when he crashed and killed himself. Or consider the case of William Rowan. Rowan was once sentenced to 45 days in jail, a mild penance for a California driving record that carried six convictions for drunk or reckless driving, two for hit and run. Last March, after leaving a downtown Santa Ana bar, Rowan drove onto a sidewalk, killing four-year-old David Gunderman, who was waiting for the ice-cream man. After hitting the child, Rowan slumped in his seat and lit a cigar. Police measured his blood alcohol content at .27.

Campaigns against drunk driving have always had sobering truths on their side; what they lacked was a real constituency. All that may have changed one spring afternoon in 1980, when 13-year-old Cari Lightner of Fair Oaks, Calif., was struck from behind and killed by a hit-and-run driver as she walked to a church carnival. Cari's mother was stunned to learn that the driver, a 47-year-old man who had two previous drunk-driving convictions and was out on bail on a third arrest, had spent only two days in jail previously and was unlikely to wind up there for killing Cari. Candy Lightner quit her real-estate job and launched Mothers Against Drunk Drivers <MADD), giving the public outcry against drunk driving the constituency it has always needed-the victims.

In the past, says Edward Kunec, a NASA official who joined MADD in Virginia after his 20-year-old son was killed by a drunk driver last summer, "people who had these tragedies closeted themselves and said it was fate or the will of the Lord. Now people are coming out of the closet-and they are angry." In just two years, MADD has grown to 83 chapters in 29 states. Remove Intoxicated Drivers-USA <RID>. founded in New York under similarly tragic circumstances, went national last year and now boasts 55 chapters in 29 states. The anger that is the movement's glue has made these organizations aggressively self-righteous and militant. "You can't be too strident," explains RID national coordinator Doris Aiken. "I don't know how you can tell someone nicely that they are incompetent to drive." Aiken warns those who view this campaign as a fad that will soon fade: "The pendulum will not swing back. There is an endless supply of victims."

The legal system often transforms the victims' grief into outrage. Paul Lawler, 15, died five days after a van barreled off a Massachusetts highway and into a restaurant entrance, pinning him against the restaurant wall. The drunk at the wheel was on probation for his third drunk-driving conviction. He was sentenced to four and a half years in prison-including the then maximum of two and half years for vehicular homicide-and is eligible for parole next July, just two years after the accident. "I was under the impression anyone arrested for this kind of thing would have the book thrown at him," says Paul's mother, Carol

September 15, 1982 Lasler, who now heads the Greater Boston chapter of MADD. "I didn't know vehicular homicide was a misdemeanor."

Mark and Bonnie Schuett turned the death of their four-year-old daughter, Kelly, who was killed as she walked near her home in quiet Ixonia, Wis., into a statewide cause celebre. The driver, a 29-year-old man with a prior drunk-driving arrest, pleaded no contest to driving while intoxicated and was given a suspended five·day jail sentence and fined $284. His license was revoked for a year-but was actually restored after 90 days because he took treatment at an alcohol-abuse center. "This man got away with hitting and killing my child," says Mrs. Schuett. "Her life means more than a $284 fine." As a result of the Schuett's lobbying effort, a new Wisconsin law went into effect last May that permits the state to suspend the license of anyone arrested for an alcohol-related driving offense-even before a trial. "Maybe we've saved somebody else's life," says Mrs. Schuett. "But I'm still angry."

GUILT

If anger fuels the movement, guilt is its motor oil. Thomas and Dorothy Sexton recall going to court to witness the trial of the man whose blood alcohol content was .26 when he killed the Sextons' 15-year-old son, Tom. They saw a car thief sentenced to two years in jail, while their son's killerwho pleaded guilty to homicide by a motor vehicle-was sentenced to two years' probation and fined $200. "We painfully relate our experience and say, 'If you don't want that to happen to you, let's do something'," says Sexton, a U.S. Department of Agriculture scientist who is now active in Maryland's MADD chapter. "I'm convinced if I had been involved in something like this five years ago, Tom would be alive today."

The movement's approach to the drunkdriving problem is essentially punitive. While legislation varies from state to state, it usually makes driving with .10 blood alcohol content <three beers or glasses of wine or shots of whisky consumed by a 150-pound man in two hours> a crime. In addition, many of the new laws makes prison mandatory, if not for the first offense, certainly for the second. They often increase penalties for drivers who refuse the blood alcohol test and require that all convictions-regardless of the court disposition-be listed on a driver's record.

Many states are delighted by the preliminary results of the new laws. In Maryland, drunk-driving arrests by state police have gone up 45 percent and highway fatalities down almost 20 percent since its law went into effect. Maine, which last year began mandatory jail sentences for first-time offenders, has experienced a 47 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities. Oregon has had the most experience-its crackdown began in 1971-and the most success. During the '70s, highway fatalities dropped 6 percent and Oregon's fatality rate declined 35 percent despite the presence of 46 percent more drivers and 62 percent more vehicles on the road.

Success may be due to more than tough laws. Oregon has coupled its legal effort with a media campaign· that urges Oregonians to report drunk drivers to a special telephone hot line. One hot-line spokesman is Donny Durrant, a former logger who had lost his license four times for drunk driving before he drove off the road at 85 mph and broke his neck. Durrant, now a quadriplegic, says in a TV message: "I wish someone had

89-059 0-86-40 (pt. 17)

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS gotten me off the road before I had the accident which drastically changed my life."

Other states are backing their legislation with a variety of programs. South Dakota places highway signs reading, "X marks the spot ... think!" at the almost 600 locations where drivers have lost their lives since 1979. Some states have considered efforts to stigmatize the drunk driver publicly. One Pennsylvania legislator proposed a special red license plate for all drivers convicted of driving while intoxicated-a modern-day scarlet letter. Local police in both Maryland and Massachusetts have gone so far as to use roadblocks, called "sobriety checkpoints," to deter and detect drunk drivers, though the Massachusetts effort has been ruled unconstitutional by a state court. Many states, however, complain that the new laws overtax their increasingly limited resources. Maine was the only state to include in its crackdown legislative package a new tax on liquor, which is expected to produce $2 million to $3 million annually that will be earmarked for treatment and prevention of alcohol problems.

COURT WATCH

The anti-drunk-driving campaigners are pressuring the courts as well as the legislators. One such group keeps constant watch in North Carolina's Forsyth County District Traffic Court. "People walk up to us and tell us things have changed," says Sandra Nicastro, one of the group's court fixtures. "Lawyers have told their clients, 'I don't think I can get you off this time because that lady's sitting there listening'." Some judges need little encouragement to get tough. Maine judges have meted out an average jail sentence of eight days to drunk drivers under the state's new laws-four time the permitted minimum. And a Mecklenburg County, N.C., judge may have set a new standard when he sentenced a drunk driver, who had eight prior arrests but had caused no injuries, to three years in jail.

Many safety experts insist crusaders should be focusing on automobiles and highways, not on drivers. H. Laurence Ross, a sociology professor at State University of New York at Buffalo, who has studied crackdowns on drunk driving, says deterrence only works for the short term when the problem is treated as a moral one rather than a safety question. In a new book, he writes: "A vehicle and highway that are safe for an alcohol-influenced driver are also safe for a driver who has a heart attack, who dozes off, who drops a lighted cigarette on his lap, who fails to see a stop sign .... "

Others are convinced that the lock-'em-up approach is meaningless unless it's combined with therapy. "I don't think the tougher laws will stop the hard-core alcoholics," says Col. Tom Anderson, director of the state police in Alaska, which has had a mandatory prison law since 1978. "It's a mess," agrees Arthur Snowden II, director of the state's court system. "We're just putting people in high-priced jails . . . just taking them off the street is not going to solve the problem." But Maryland district court Judge David Bates thinks he knows the solution. Bates gives drunk drivers the maximum permissible sentence, then waives it if they are willing to enter an appropriate education or treatment program. While it is hard to measure the success of Bates' approach because probationary sentences weren't included on drivers' records until last year, Bates says only 149 of the 5,697 drivers referred to the program dropped out or had their probation revoked.

23775 But putting drunks behind bars does take

them off the road in a way revoking their licenses never did. Many of those convicted in the past simply drove without a license. Others easily obtained licenses in other states: a Federal Highway Administration study reported that Ohio in 1977 had issued 1.3 million more licenses than there were driving-age Ohioans. Clarence Busch, who inadvertently launched MADD when he killed Cari Lightner, moved to Wisconsin last fall and obtained a license within a few days. The National Driver Register, a computerized roster of drivers whose licenses have been suspended, revoked or denied, was established in 1960 to remedy such problems. But states can communicate with it only by mail, and with 84,000 inquiries coming in daily, the system is cumbersome and slow.

NO QUESTIONS ASKED

Still, there are signs of reform that just a few years ago would have been unimaginable. One is Students Against Drunk Drivers <SADD>, which began as a high-school project in suburban Wayland, Mass., and has been replicated already by students in 150 other schools. In Wayland, 900 students signed SADD contracts with their parents, promising to call home at any hour when a sober ride home is not available. In return, parents pledge "to come and get you at any hour, any place, no questions asked and no argument at that time ... " Montgomery County, Md., had a surprise for students heading to senior year-end festivities. The boys found a note tucked in their rented tuxedos counseling, "Friends don't let friends drive drunk," and providing a botline number that provided free rides home. And in rural Truman, Minn., the high school spent $79 for a breath-testing device for its prom after rowdy drunks disrupted last year's festivities. The machine is now kept in the school vault for use during school hours.

Anti-drunk-driving crusaders hope that breath-testing devices will become as much a fixture on the social scene as the shaker and stirrer, and a number of bars and restaurants have installed them. Anthony Ravosa, a defense attorney who has defended many clients against drunk-driving charges, offers a breath test to customers in his South Hadley, Mass., Riverboat Restaurant and provides courtesy rides home to those who flunk it.

Ravosa's gesture may ultimately prove to be more than simply humanitarian. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court says an establishment can be liable for serving too much booze to a customer, and earlier this year it upheld a $50,000 verdict against a Milford tavern that served "six or more" white russians to a customer who was "obviously intoxicated." That customer later drove off the road killing nine-year-old John Cimino.

How DRUNKS GET OFF Defense attorney Randy Taylor parades

around the courtroom, his arms pinned behind him by handcuffs. After several minutes of histrionic discomfort he compels the cop on the witness stand to remove the cuffs and place them on the defendant, a man charged with driving while intoxicated <DWI>. Then Taylor seizes his client and bullies him about. Wasn't that how the police acted when they arrested him? he asks the witness. Finally, the Dallas lawyer shoves his client into a chair and barrels up to the cop: "Isn't It true you said, 'Shut up,

23776 you s.o.b.!' and kicked him in the leg?" And Taylor wins an acquittal.

"That's the way you get your client off," Taylor says. "The single most important factor in the typical DWI case is trying to make the jury put themselves in the place of the defendant." Taylor knows few restraints. On one occasion, after pleading his woman client guilty of DWI, he implored the jury, "The government wolves are really howling for blood tonight, waiting to put this poor little girl in jail for 30 days, taking her away from her husband." Then he put the cuffs on her, and she broke down and wept, attesting to the humiliation she had suffered. Despite a prior DWI conviction just 30 days before this arrest, she was sentenced to only three days in jail. Another time Taylor concluded his summation by stage-whispering to his client's four children, "Kids, I've done everything I can for your daddy." Pointing to the jury, he said, "Now it's up to these folks here." The defendant, who Taylor admits was probably guilty, was acquitted in 15 minutes.

The concept of "there but for the grace of God go I" has been the cornerstone of DWI legal defense ever since drunks started stepping on the gas. While the appeal is emotional, its foundation is solidly statistical: a recent Gallop poll reveals that four out of 10 Americans admit to having driven after drinking. But the extraordinary public campaign against drunk driving is having its impact even on jurors who may understand-from personal experience-the drunk driver's plight. The Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Project recently has sponsored two special programs on DWI defense. Its program notes read: "The public has come to view DWI as a pernicious force in their communities and are demanding stiffer penalties ... this institute is designed to teach you how to effectively represent your client ... " Among the tactics garnered from the program and talks with top defense attorneys:

Challenge the evidence. Breath-analysis tests should not be accepted as gospel. Force the prosecution to prove that the testing machine was in good working order, that its chemicals had been tested and that its operator had proper qualifications. The tests aren't foolproof. Some people such as diabetics, who have certain chemicals Jn their breath, or denture wearers, who trap alcohol fumes along their gums, trigger false positive readings. If a blood sample was taken, make sure to request it; if it no longer exists, claim that it was purposely destroyed.

Track down witnesses. Find people who were with the defendant before he got behind the wheel and get them to testify about how sober he was. Attorney F. Lee Bailey's acquittal on DWI charges in California stemmed partly from testimony about his sober behavior on the evening of his arrest by people who were at the restaurant where Bailey dined.

Get the insurance company involved. Insurers tend to see cases as business problems, not moral issues, and are often anxious to settle damage matters expeditiously. Don't assume that the victim's families want vengeance; often they just want the case to go away too.

Visit the scene of the arrest. Since it can take up to six months between the arrest and the trial, the arresting officers can often be tripped up on details about the location. "If they [make mistakes]," says Taylor, "I can argue, 'Well, if you can't remember this, why can you remember any-thing else better?'"

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Try to talk with the police-and hope you

fail. When the police won't cooperate, argue that the witness is hostile, biased and has an ax to grind.

Carefully consider the choice between judge and jury. Taylor opts for a jury 95 percent of the time. He says, "I can manipulate the jury's minds more than I can a trial judge who's been on the bench 15 years and seen all my tricks." But cases that revolve around complex points of law may best be left to a judge.

The courtrooms are the ultimate battleground in the war on drunk driving. And to win the war, reformers must find ways to force jurors and judges to sympathize with the victims of drunk drivers, instead of the defendants.

DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED

There was something absurd about drinking on an abandoned Schenectady airport runway while surrounded by police, but I wanted to find out how alcohol affected my driving skills. So I drank my gin and tonic next to an unmarked trooper car. As my bartender, Sgt. Henry Michelin, put it: "Just like the neighborhood bar-someplace to lean and drink."

An average male guinea pig-5 feet 10, 170-1 had arranged to take on a difficult state-police driving course both sober and drunk. I supplied the gin and tonic, the state police provided a car. The course requires precise maneuvering around hard rubber cones-forward and backward. Scoring combines the time taken to complete the course with a five-second penalty for each mistake-such as flattening a cone. And a passing tally for troopers is 2 minutes 17 seconds. My blood alcohol level was measured by a preliminary-breath-test <PBT> device the size of a cigarette pack.

After eight practice runs through the course, I had whittled my time down from 3 minutes 10 seconds to a passing score, and it was time to begin drinking. My first gin and tonic-containing three ounces of 80-proof booze-placed my blood alcohol level 45 minutes later at .07 <70 milligrams of alcohol per decaliter of blood), high enough in New York to be charged with driving while impaired by alcohol. At this point I was slightly lightheaded, but I did't feel uncoordinated. My driving score told a different story. Not only did I add 1 minute 12 seconds to my previous, sober record, but my score was 19 seconds over my very first attempt.

WRETCHED

During my first post-drink attempt, I unconsciously tried to compensate for my condition through caution-a tactic that experts say is common among drunk drivers. In my case it didn't work: it took me longer and I made many more mistakes. This dropoff in performance was intensified by two more drinks, each containing one ounce of gin, which put my blood alcohol level at .11, or enough to be charged with driving while intoxicated or driving with a blood alcohol level of .10 or more. Now I could easily tell that I was uncoordinated. I stumbled slightly when I walked and I flunked the touchyour-nose-with-your-finger test. My driving ability plummeted from poor to wretched. My score-4 minutes 26 seconds-was almost double my final sober result. "You have no business being in an automobile out on the road," said Sergeant Michelin.

While impairment due to alcohol varies from person to person and even, depending on circumstances, for the same individual, experts say that driving skills are signifi-

September 15, 1982 cantly diminished at a blood alcohol level of .10. That's why many states have adopted .10 as the limit for determining when someone has been driving while intoxicated. However, Robert Pandina, acting director of the Center of Alcohol Studies at New Jersey's Rutgers University, argues that there is impairment at lower levels as well. Pandina explains that the .10 standard is "a kind of compromise that recognizes that this is a drinking society."

WIDE AWAKE

Contrary to old wives and drinking buddies, nothing will temper the effects of alcohol except the passage of time-about two hours for every ounce consumed. Food slows the release of alcohol into the bloodstream without blunting its effect, and exercise and coffee will only produce a "wide-awake drunk"-someone alert enough to spot trouble but unable to do anything about it. That was clear enough to me as I rode with Sergeant Michelin back to town; my slowmotion brain couldn't keep up with the rush-hour traffic on the highway. I couldn't help remembering the times when I had been this drunk and driven, and the thought scared the hell out of me.e

LEGISLATION INTRODUCED TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954 TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND WORK INCENTIVES FOR THE DISABLED AND HANDICAPPED

HON. DON BAILEY OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. BAILEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Internal Revenue Code has become one of the Nation's most pervasive vehicles of social policy. The Congress has drafted and redrafted its sections to reflect society's rewards to those who are productive, to give individuals relief because of some specified financial burdens, and to provide revenue with which to finance our common concerns. But the Congress has generally failed to use the code to recognize the contributions and needs of the vast majority of disabled citizens in our country.

Much of the Congress failure to provide tax relief for disabled persons and incentives to aid in their gainful employment is of historical origins. However, two recent societal changes, or trends, necessitate that Congress moderr.Uze the code to recognize disabled individuals. The first is the unprecedented numbers of disabled persons who are living independent of institutions, at a considerable cost savings to the Government and society. This phenomenon enhances the quality of life for the individual, though it also adds to his personal stresses, largely in the form of greater personal expenses. I believe that the provisions of the Tax Code need to be amended to assist such individuals without burdening the Public Treasury in the manner

September 15, 1982 and degree as did previously emphasized institutionalization.

A second change has led to greater opportunities for disabled persons, once considered unemployable, to now make economic contributions to society. Several factors have led to this much desired end. Better medical care and improved rehabilitation services that have greatly extended the life expectancy of disabled persons and have expanded their ability to participate in society is one. Another is that industrial production has become increasingly automated, thereby requiring less physical labor and providing a larger number of employment opportunities for those with physical disabilities. In sum, improved adaptation to disabilities and modernized employment opportunities make many persons with disabilities employable, whereas they were less likely to be gainfully employed only a decade or more ago.

Combined with these major societal changes are efforts to reduce personal reliance on public assistance. While this is a commendable goal, it's unrealistic for us to disregard several facts as we consider budget-cutting legislation. First, disabled persons most often reenter the work force through new types of jobs at low-paying entry levels. Second, they face greater personal work-related expenses. And, third, they face formidable architectural barriers. When eliminating or curtailing the availability of essential services, we must recognize the need for personal financial relief so that the disabled individual can more nearly become self-reliant. I've introduced several bills this session that amend the Internal Revenue Code to help disabled persons become self-reliant. These measures are based on many years of observation and study by me and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

These measures will not suffice as the sole economic support needed by many disabled persons. But we know that amendments to the Internal Revenue Code could be used to provide disabled individuals with significant relief from their disability-related expenses. In fact, one of my bills allows disabled persons to offset their extraordinary work-related expenses. In addition, we must enact greater incentives for seriously disabled persons to return as productive members of the work force. This can be accomplished, in part, by removing architectural barriers, so that the disabled can have access to places of employment and commerce. Persons who have total and permanent disabilities can, with proper and adequate incentives and assistance, return to the work force and thereby reduce the Government's income maintenance programs. But, first, places of employment must be accessible. This is the goal of H.R.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 6460, which I would like to describe in detail.

The most fundamental aspect of any approach to increasing employment opportunities for disabled persons is removing architectural barriers that impede their movement. H.R. 6460 helps achieve that goal by amending section 190 of the Internal Revenue Code.

H.R. 6460 A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954 to increase the amount allowed to be deducted each taxable year for expenses incurred in connection with the elimination of architectural and transportation barriers for the handicapped and elderly from $25,000 to $100~000, and to make permanent the allowance Of such deduction Be it enacted by the Senate and HoWJe of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That <a> subsection (c) of section 190 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 <relating to expenditures to remove architectural and transportation barriers to the handicapped and elderly) is amended by striking out "$25,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$100,000".

(b) Subsection <c> of section 2122 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 <90 Stat. 1915) is amended by striking out", and before January 1, 1983".

<c> The amendment made by subsection <a> shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1981.

As many of my colleagues know, section 190 of the Internal Revenue Code currently provides a tax deduction for expenses incurred in making publicly used, but privately owned, facilities accessible to elderly and disabled persons. The maximum allowable deduction under current law is $25,000, but that expires on December 31, 1982. H.R. 6460 increases the allowable maximum deduction to $100,000 and makes it available permanently. By doing so, the bill provides two incentives to businessmen to make necessary site alterations. By increasing the amount of the deduction, the bill gives an important incentive to individuals or corporations with several sites or extensive alterations. And by making the deductions permanent, it allows businessmen time for long-term planning.

Senator BoB DOLE, an outstanding spokesman for the handicapped and disabled, has introduced identical legislation in the Senate and I am very proud to be the House sponsor of his bill. Both he and I recognize the growing number of elderly and disabled citizens who would participate as customers and employees if only architectural barriers could be overcome. Both our bills provide a mechanism for achieving that goal.

The second measure I have introduced, H.R. 707 4, is modeled on the double personal tax exemption that offsets an individual's expenses due to blindness or advancing age. Where these persons are gainfully employed, they experience greater expenses be-

23777 cause of extraordinary transportation costs and the necessary equipment or supplies without which they would remain unemployed. My bill extends the double personal tax exemption to the disabled.

An itemization of average disabilityrelated expenditures is helpful in understanding the need for the double personal income tax exemption. In 1980, the Paralyzed VeteranS of America conducted a survey of some catastrophically disabled persons, all of whom were permanently and totally disabled because of spinal cord injuries or dysfunctions. They reported the following average expenses that generally are not incurred by able-bodied persons. Or, if they are, they are much lower:

Adaption of residence-$5,947 <one-time). Attendant services-$3,548 <annual). B:ealth care-$2,164 <annual>. Homemaker services-$1,962 <annual>. Prosthetic devices-$1.129 <annual>. Extra employment-related expenses-$912

<annual>. Therapy /counseling-$893 <annual for ini

tial years of disability).

Each disabled person surveyed had not incurred all of the expenses listed above, and it should be noted that adaption of a residence is not an annual expense. However, let me stress that many disabled persons hire someone to perform commonplace home and personal maintenance activities for them throughout the remainder of their lives. Other studies complement the findings of PV A's survey, including one financed by the Federal Government to determine the price society pays for disabilities.

That study, "Statistical Information Pertaining to Some of the Most Commonly Asked Questions About Spinal Cord Injury," clearly showed that disability is financially devastating to the individual and to society. The study showed that the average spinal cord injured person is young and lives 25 years after the onset of the disability. At least $250,000 in productivity, as measured in personal earnings, is taken from society each time a person becomes paralyzed and does not return to gainful employment. As such, every effort should be made to encourage and assist in returning these individuals to the workplace.

In fact, my bill to provide for a double personal income tax exemption would partly achieve this goal. It would, as I mentioned, help offset the large personal expenses incurred by disabled persons. A double exemption, like that already granted to blind and aged individuals, would clearly help those who are paralyzed or have other permanent disabilities meet their extraordinary work-related expenses. The double exemption, like improved accessibility, would provide an added stimulus for reemployment.

23778 H.R. 7074

A bill to amend section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an additional exemption for disabled individuals who need assistance in the form of attendant care services or medical devices in order to be employed or whose disabilities are so severe that such assistance would not enable such individuals to be employed Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PERSONAL EXEMPTION FOR DIS·

ABLED TAXPAYER OR SPOUSE

(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR DISABIL· ITY OF TAXPAYER OR SPOUSE. Subsection (d) of section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 <relating to deductions for personal exemptions> is amended by inserting "or disabled" after "blind" each place it occurs in paragraphs <1> and <2> of such subsection.

(b) DEFINITION OF DISABLED.-Subsection <d> of section 151 of such Code <relating to deductions for personal exemptions> is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(4) DISABILITY DEFINED.-"(A) For purposes of this subsection, an

individual is disabled only if such individual has any physical or mental impairment <other than blindness but including a hearing impairment> which-

"<ii> has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months or can be expected to result in death, and

"<ii> constitutes or results in a functional limitation to the empoyment of such individual.

" For purposes of this paragraph-"(i) the term 'functional limitation to em

ployment' means a limitation sufficiently severe so as-

"(1> to require assistance <in the form of attendant care services, medical devices, equipment, or prostheses, or similar items or services as determined by the Secretary in regulations> for an individual in order for such individual to engage in employment, or

"<II> to prevent an individual from engaging in any substantial gainful activity even though such individual is receiving assistance described in subclause ; and

"<iD the term 'physical or mental impairment' means an impairment which results from an anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormality which is demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory techniques."

(C) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-

<1> Subsection <d> of section 151 of such Code <relating to deductions for personal exemptions> is amended by inserting in the heading of such subsection "o:R OTHER DIS· ABILITY" after "BLINDNESS".

<2> Paragraph <l><C> of section 3402([) of such Code <relating to withholding exemptions> is amended by striking out "(relating to the blind)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(relating to blindness or other disability>".

(d) EFFECTIVE DATES.-( 1) The amendments made by subsections

(a), (b), and <c><l> shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1982.

(2) The amendment made by subsection <c><2> shall apply to payments of wages made after December 31, 1982.

The third bill I have introduced, H.R. 7075, would provide severely disabled individuals tax relief similar to that now granted to older Americans.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS That is, H.R. 7075 provides an $125,000 exclusion from capital gains taxes of the sale of a home or principal residence when a person is forced to sell his home as the result of his disability or the disability of a member of his family. Congress has seen the need for extending such an exemption to Americans who have reached age 55, and only recently reaffirmed its support for this provision by increasing the amount of the exclusion frotn $100,000 to $125,000.

Newly disabled persons are often forced to sell their homes for two reasons: First, the medical expenses arising from a disability can be devastating. This situation is compounded by the loss of the individual's savings and his ability to continue earning a pay check. At such times, disabled persons are often forced to sell their homes in order to pay medical expenses and/ or to reduce the expenses associated with maintaining their homes. Regrettably, under existing law, a large portion of their sales gain is taken through taxation, even though they have a clear and urgent need for these funds.

Second, disabled persons often find that their existing residences are of limited use because of their need for accessible housing. These persons do not want to part with their homes, but the practical need for accessibility requires the purchases of a new residence. Again, disabled persons must bear a tax burden to which they would not be subjected if it were not for their disabilities. Many must rent apartments, where routine maintenance chores are taken care of by the apartment owner. Others seek accessible homes, though delays in locating a new home often preclude reinvestment. In both instances, disabled persons are subject to capital gains tax on the income realized from the sale of the original residence.

H.R. 7075 amends section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a homeowner to exclude from capital gains taxation the first $125,000 realized from the sale of his principal residence whenever the sale is prompted by the owner's disability or the disability of a family member. In the case of the owner's disability, this amendment would be an acceleration of the existing one-time exclusion which would be realized when the owner reached age 55. Further, the bill clearly states the conditions by which the sale of a residence is considered to be the result of the homeowner's disability or the disability of a family member.

H.R. 7075 A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954 to provide a one-time exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence by a taxpayer who engages in such sale because he or a member of his family has become disabled. and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

September 15, 1982 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 121 TO

PERMIT ONE-TIME EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE BY DISABLED INDIVIDUAL <a> IN GENERAL.-Paragraph (1) of subsec

tion (a) of section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 <relating to one-time exclusion of gain from sale of principal residence by individual who has attained age 55) is amended to read as follows:

"{1) the taxpayer-"<A> has attained age 55 before the date of

such sale or exchange, or "(B) has engaged in such sale or exchange

because he <or a member of his family) has become disabled; and".

 SPECIAL RULEs.-Subsection <d> of section 121 of such code <relating to special rules> is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraphs:

"(9) SALE OR EXCHANGE BECAUSE OF DISABIL· ITY oF TAXPAYER.-A taxpayer shall be treated as having met the conditions of subparagraph of subsection <a><l> if the sale or exchange referred to in such subparagraph is completed within the 2-year period beginning on the date the disability of the taxpayer <or the member of the taxpayer's family) was first determined by a physician <as such term is defined in the first sentence of paragraph <2> of section 8101 of title 5, United States Code), or reasonably should have been determined, to exist, unless it appears to the Secretary that such sale or exchange was entered into by the taxpayer for a reason which is unrelated to such disability.

"{10) MEMBER OF FAllrliLY DEFINED.-

"(A) The term 'member of the taxpayer's family' means the spouse or a child of the taxpayer if such spouse or child has as his principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer's household.

" The term 'child' has the meaning given it in section 151(e)(3).

"(11) DISABILITY DEFINED.-"(A) For purposes of this section, an indi

vidual is disabled only if such individual has any physical or mental impairment <including blindness or a hearing impairment> which-

"(1) has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months or can be expected to result in death, and

"(ii) except in the case of a child of the taxpayer, constitutes or results in a functional limitation to the employment of such individual.

"(B) For purposes of this paragraph-"(i) the term 'functional limitation to em

ployment' means a limitation sufficiently severe so as-

" to require assistance <in the form of attendant care services, medical devices, equipment, or prostheses, or similar items or services as determined by the Secretary in regulations> for an individual in order for such individual to engage in employment, or

"<II> to prevent an individual from engaging in any substantial gainful activity even though such individual is receiving assistance described in subclause ; and

"(ii) the term 'physical or mental impairment' means an impairment that results from an anatomical, physiological, or psy-chological abnormality which is demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory techniques."

(C) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-

September 15, 1982 {1) Paragraph {l)(C) of section 12Hd> of

such Code (relating to special rules) is amended by striking out " the age, holding and use requirements" and inserting in lieu thereof " the age or disability and the holding and use requirements".

(2) The heading of section 121 of such Code is amended by inserting "or become disabled" after "age 55".

(3) The item relating to section 121 in the table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting "or become disabled" after "age 55".

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1982.

The fourth bill, which I will soon be introducing, will amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide that reasonable expenses incurred in making a principal residence accessible be treated as a deduction from income during the year in which the expense is incurred. As many of my colleagues know, when a family member or income earner becomes disabled, the existing primary residence can be made accessible. In fact, in many cases, the family prefers to modify the home rather than purchase a new one. But, under existing law, the improvements necessary for accessibility are not tax deductible until the sale of the home, at which time there is a capital gains exclusion. The bill I will be introducing will change this section of the code and provide a family with income tax relief at the time when it is most needed.

The four bills I have described will provide both assistance and incentives to the disabled in their effort to return to work. As I mentioned, the societal costs of disability have received great attention during the past few years. The 96th Congress, in passing such legislation as the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, emphasized society's need for returning persons with disabilities to gainful employment. But, as the Congress considers future legislation reducing or eliminating programs assisting the disabled, I think it is important that we do not reverse our past efforts by creating disincentives to returning the disabled to the workplace. We must continue to help these individuals become self-reliant. My bills recognize the special needs of employable disabled persons. They amend the Internal Revenue Code to reflect more accurately the societal changes that have occurred and to make self-reliance a reality for the disabled. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting the measures.e

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS STAND BY YOUR GUNS!

HON. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO OF CALIFORNIA


Wednesday~ September 15, 1982 e Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, much of the media attention on the Reagan administration decision to block sale of U.S. technology for the Soviet natural gas pipeline has focused on the harm that decision has reportedly had for American business and for our Western European allies. However, the following commentary by Marvin Stone from the September 13 edition of U.S. News and World Report offers the opinion that the President has a strong case for his action.

I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to the merits of this argument. [From U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 13,

19821 STAND BY YOUR GUNS!

<By Marvin Stone> Rarely in his 19 months in office has

President Reagan been under such criticism as that brought on by his decision to get tough with American and Western European firms that are supplying vital components to the Soviets for a natural-gas pipeline.

Major U.S. newspapers have joined European critics in charging that the President made a decision harmful not only to American business interests but also to allied unity.

Is this another case of Reagan's being stubborn? Or is he being steadfast in following a course that he and many others consider to be in the interests of both Europe and the U.S.?

We think the President has a strong case for his action. The deals Reagan is trying to stop not only are supplying the Soviets with the equipment needed to build the pipeline but are doing so on easy credit terms. And when the pipeline is finished, Moscow stands to reap some 8 billion dollars a year in hard currency by supplying a Western Europe that will have become dependent on gas from Siberia. No wonder the Kremlin is gloating.

The President's position is that It doesn't make sense for Western European countries-which spend bUlions of dollars on NATO defenses against Russia-to hand over Western technology to Russia at cutrate prices.

A little background: Reagan first spoke out against the pipeline at an economic summit meeting in Ottawa in July, 1981. At that time, he offered to arrange alternate supplies of energy to Western Europe if it would back off the pipeline deal. He ran into a brick wall of opposition by heads of state anxious to preserve contracts worth billions to concerns in their countries.

Last December, after the Soviets encouraged the Communist regime's harsh crackdown in Poland, the President put into effect a mild form of sanctions against Moscow. He banned American companies from selling equipment for the pipeline until the Soviets used their influence to lift martial law in Poland. The repression in Poland still goes on.

23779 Then, at Versailles in June, Reagan

thought he had made a deal with the same leaders: If they would cut back on the easy credits being given Communist countries and set up firm guidelines for sales of hightechnology products to the Soviet Union, he would reconsider his attempt to block the pipeline.

But both West Germany and France soon made it clear they wouldn't go along with such a deal. It was little wonder that Reagan was both grieved and angered. His next move: He extended the ban on pipeline sales to include American subsidiaries abroad and foreign companies manufacturing under American licenses.

Then, in August, came the showdown. A French-based subsidiary of a U.S. firmacting under orders from the French government-defied the ban and shipped pipeline equipment to Russia. Reagan promptly forbade any American company to do any business with that subsidiary or with a French firm also involved in the deal. On September 1, the sanctions were eased somewhat, but the impasse continues-with everyone looking for a way out.

What should Reagan do now? Back down, his critics say. But we agree with Senator Dan Quayle <R-Ind> who says: "The President should not consider lifting the sanctions until the Europeans agree to a binding, long-term accord" on deals with the Communist bloc.

"First," says Quayle, " there must be no subsidization of financial credits on any future sales to the East. Second, there must be strict adherence and enforcement of the restrictions placed on the exportation of high-technology goods to the East ....

"Such a consensus could rejuvenate the Western Alliance, unravel the confusion about U.S. foreign-tra.de policy with the Soviets and quell the increasing calls from both sides of the Atlantic for protectionist measures. ' '

President Reagan has generated a much needed debate on East-West relations that is long overdue. Some good can come of it if the President will stand by his guns.e

CHESTER COUNTY, PA., ALLSTARS

HON. RICHARD T. SCHULZE OF PENNSYLVANIA



• Mr. SCHULZE. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to bring to the attention of my colleagues an 11-girl team of the Big League Division of Girls Little League Softball, who recently worked their way to the Pennsylvania State championships.

These young women became the State champs the hard way-with zeal, team work, and the moral support of their families and communities. With each win, they found it necessary to travel to other parts of the State, but their financial resources for these trips were practically nonexistent. Whenever it seems that money problems would stand in the way of their next competition and their hopes were flagging, they managed to put together sufficient funds to go one more

23780 round, and their perseverance ultimately paid off. Congratulations to the Chester County District 23 AllStars for winning against the odds, and for demonstrating that there really is no better formula for success than good, old-fashioned hard work and dedication. We are proud of the accomplishments of: Joan Duffy, Malvern; Michelle Edens, Malvern; Terry Edwards, Malvern; Anne Galloway, Elverson; Mary Louise Gibney, Berwyn; Linda Lear, Paoli; Cynthia Lowry, Malvern; Jodi Moulder, Malvern; Renee Rexrode, Pottstown; Sherry Werner, Spring City; Kris Zimmerman, West Chester; Team Manager John Werner; Team Coach Don Mittica.e

EFFECT OF NEW FEDERALISM ON THE CHILDREN OF CONNECTICUT

HON. ANTHONY TOBY MOFFEIT OF CONNECTICUT


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 • Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, September 8, I coordinated a forum at St. Joseph College in West Hartford, Conn., on the effect of the New Federalism on the children of my State. This event was hosted by St. Joseph College and the University of Connecticut Graduate School of Social Work Student Organization. Both schools offer distinguished curricula in the fields of child development and welfare; the willingness of St. Joseph College and the UCONN School of Social Work to present the child welfare forum reflects a spirit and commitment to Connecticut children and their families of which I am very proud. It was truly an honor to be a part of that event.

I must say that I have rarely had the opportunity to hear such eloquent and timely testimony as was presented by the forum's panel of witnesses. They represent service providers in a wide range of child and family services, from day care to public education to juvenile justice and handicapped services. Although the witnesses provide a host of different services, they all voiced a common belief: The Federal role in meeting the needs of children must be maintained in order to preserve and continue the gains made by State, local, public, and private sources of aid. The partnership is essential. As one witness stated:

It becomes clearer and clearer as one confronts the myriad of problems that families face today, that no single agency or even coalition of public and private agencies within the State, can provide all of the supports necessary to assure the health and welfare of our children.

I was joined in receiving testimony at the forum by two of my House colleagues who have demonstrated a deep

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS and abiding commitment to the welfare of children, Representatives BARBARA KENNELLY and GEORGE MILLER. I know it is not necessary to recount to this body how very important these two Members are to the promotion of quality child care in the United States. The forum was equally as meaningful and informative to Representatives KENNELLY and MILLER, I know, as it was to me; Congressman MILLER will be going before the Rules Committee tomorrow, hearing the messages he received from the forum witnesses, in support of his proposal to establish a Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House of Representatives.

Over the next several days, I will be submitting to the RECORD the testimony presented before the forum on the effect of the New Federalism on the children of Connecticut, in the order it was received. The scope, the depth, and the clarity of the testimony demands our fullest attention-and must prompt us to take immediate action to protect the welfare of our Nation's most vulnerable population, our children.

Following are the opening statements to the forum by Congresswoman KENNELLY and myself. Congressman MILLER's statements will follow in tomorrow's REcoRD. On the following consecutive days, the distinguished witness' testimony will be printed.

Statements of Hon. BARBARA KENNELLY and Hon. TOBY MOFFETT attached:

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA B. KENNELLY

This forum is a welcome opportunity for Congressman George Miller, Toby Moffett, and myself to discuss the impact of the new federalism on Connecticut children with individuals who are closely involved with both private sector and government programs serving children here in our state. I am very grateful to the staff of St. Joseph College and the members of the University of Connecticut Graduate School of Social Work Student Organization for co-hosting this forum, and for their sustained efforts on behalf of child and family welfare.

The Reagan Administration has many commendable goals-the development of a strong partnership between Washington and State and local governments, the encouragement of volunteer efforts to help solve America's social problems, and the preservation of a reliable "safety net" to protect those in need. I don't think any of us have any quarrel with those goals, but we are deeply concerned about the way in which the Administration proposes to achieve them.

Despite the Administration's goals, there has been a systemmatic effort to reduce or eliminate those programs which constitute an important investment in our children and their future. The Administration claims to be working to root out waste and fraud, but it has consistently targeted programs which are cost-effective, well-managed, and successful. The Administration claims to be interested in improving the relationship between federal and state and local governments, but it has proposed legislation and

September 15, 1982 regulations that are more administratively onerous than what was previously in effect.

I am afraid this Administration has assumed that official indifference can serve as official policy. I am worried about the impact this seeming indifference will have on our children, and on the future we leave them. We cannot hope to maintain this country's prominence in the changing world economy without continuing our strong commitment to developing the potential of our nation's children to the fullest. The irony is that this Administration would have our children pay twice: in lost opportunities today, in higher social costs tomorrow. It is currently difficult in the Congress to

assess the impact of the Administration's budget cuts on families and to enunciate an alternative policy. The overlapping jurisdictions of the congressional committee system do not lend themselves to a comprehensive overview. Congressman George Miller, with whom it is a honor and a pleasure to be here today, is working to establish a select committee on children, youth and families to fill this need. It is an effort which I am strongly supporting.

At present, the public and the Congress must be vigilant in defending the progress we have made in reducing the infant mortality rate, in assuring equal education opportunity to handicapped children, and in providing community-based solutions to problems of the juvenile justice system. As you all know, one of the most articulate defenders of this progress has been Congressman Toby Moffett, someone who needs no introduction to those who truly care about the needs of our children.

STATEMENT OF HoN. TOBY MoFFETT I am pleased to be here at today's forum.

The very setting of this event is significant to the future of child and family services in Connecticut. St. Joseph College, now celebrating its 50 year anniversary, has been a leading force in the development of comprehensive child and family services. I want to offer my sincere thanks to the staff of St. Joseph College and the University of Connecticut Graduate School of Social Work Student Organization for hosting today's forum. By providing us with this opportunity to weigh the impact of the New Federalism on Connecticut's children, St. Joseph and the UCONN School of Social Work once again display their commitment to ensuring child and family welfare.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals. We know now that it is bad economics. I think that this statement is appropriate to the supply-side fallacy embraced by President Reagan. It has been one year since the President's economic policy became the law of the land, a policy which rewards the wealthy of our nation at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable. Children didn't vote for this game plan. They didn't have any say at all. Yet, $10 billion in children's services were sacrificed last year so that the Reagan Administration could keep the world "safe for hypocrisy." What else can one label the policy of a President who purports to be pro-family? The glue that helps keep so many families together is being destroyed-compensatory education for the disadvantaged, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, day care services, child nutrition, health, and other programs vital to the development of the nation's children.

Who are the victims of the New Federalism? They are children. Children comprise

September 15, 1982 the majority of Americans suffering from poverty, living and partly living, in the words of T. S. Eliot. Who are the welfare "cheats" the President claims to be ridding from the system? 70 percent of them are children, the poorest of the poor.

It seems extraordinary that in this day and age American children could be wanting, but the sad reality is that it is true. One in seven children has no regular source of health care: two out of five is not fully immunized; one out of three has never been to a dentist. Our infant mortality rate is not even among the ten lowest rates in the world. 90 out of 10,000 Japanese children die before their first birthday, but 130 out of 10,000 American children do. Twice as many nonwhite American infants die during their first year of life as white infants.

Clearly, there is a genuine and huge need for comprehensive children services in this nation. But the Administration has determined that the federal government should end its partnership with state and private sources in providing these services, services with proven records of effectiveness. In many cases, the federal support is modest and may appear on paper to be an insignificant amount. But to the local service provider, those modest funds are essential. The partnership is essential. The responsibility is shared.

And what are these programs facing budget cuts or extinction? They are, by and large, exemplary, effective, and cost effective initiatives which should be expanded rather than curtailed. The supplemental food program known as WIC for nutritionally at-risk pregnant women and their children works-WIX mothers have one-third the low-birth weight babies as do similar non-WIC mothers. The Title I education program for disadvantaged children worksTitle I children progress faster in their classes than do similar non-Title I pupils. Head Start for preschoolers works-Head Start children are less likely to drop out of school than their low-income counterparts, need less special educational services, and demonstrate gains in achievement scores that persist over time.

Where is the waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs? There is none. These are lean programs that save taxpayer dollars. These are wise social investments. But despite their demonstrated effectiveness, children services are now being dismantled, suddenly and drastically. How are the children of Connecticut faring under the New Federalism? That's what we have joined together today to find out.

Connecticut may be one of the highest per-capita income states in the nation. But recent Census data indicates that, since 1970, the number of children living in poverty has jumped by over 27 percent. Who will speak for these children? Today's panel of witnesses represents some of the most active defenders of child and family services in our state. I am glad to welcome the panel and am eager to hear from them on how our children are faring under the New Federalism. But first, it is my distinct pleasure and privilege to introduce my friend and colleague from California who will be chairing this forum, Congressman George Miller.

George Miller, I know, is no stranger to this assemblage. George is recognized nationwide as an outspoken advocate and leading spokesman in Congress on issues affecting child and family services. He is one of the ranking Members of the powerful House Education and Labor Committee: this 97th Congress, he was elected Chairman of the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Labor Standards Subcommittee where he recently fought and won the battle against weakening our Child Labor Laws. His legislative accomplishments on behalf of the nation's children include the extension of the WIC program; the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act: the Child Abuse Preven• tion and Treatment Act; major progressive amendments to the school lunch and rehabilitation acts; and much more. Congressman Miller is currently working on establishing in the House of Representatives a Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, an effort which I am actively supporting. Members of the audience, Congressman George Miller.e

THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN OF NEW YORK



• Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the 97th Congress, it is appropriate that we review the state of the economy in our 26th Congressional District during this period. We entered the year 1981 in the middle of a long term economic downturn. Nationally, the inflation rate stood at 12.3 percent and the prime interest rate stood at 21.5 percent. Savings were down sharply from levels earlier in the Carter administration. Taxes were up sharply, as was Government spending. Our economic problems were the result of long term factors in our economy: The problems of decreasing productivity, erratic monetary policy, insufficient incentives for savings and investments, high taxes, and a bloated public sector.

When the Reagan administration came into office in the beginning of 1981, it offered a bold new plan for economic recovery; but the program was designed for the long term, and there was recognition that it could not work overnight even if it was enacted speedily, which it was not. In evaluating the progress of this new policy, we must understand that it cannot be judged on the basis of its performance in bringing about an early reversal or the Carter recession-that was not promised. What that economic recover program serves to do is to try to promote a long term, stable recovery. The administration's economic recovery program featured tax and spending cuts, regulatory relief, and monetary restraint. It was designed to bring down inflation and to provide long term growth in the economy.

The factors which brought on our present recession, which we are now recovering from, were not transient factors but deep-rooted problems. Encouraging individual initiative and the private sector, as a whole, to become the engine of a strong economy, which is the main thrust of the Reagan program, is a long-term process.

23781 What is the impact of the first year

and one-third of the Reagan program. First, inflation is down sharply. This is the most beneficial aspect of the program for those on fixed incomes and for the elderly in general because they can protect themselves least from its effects. The benefits of cutting the inflation tax on the bank accounts of seniors far outweighs by nearly unimaginable proportions any reductions in Government-affected benefits that may have touched seniors. In general, for the population as a whole, after-tax income is headed sharply upward-a combination of higher real wages and lower taxes, and let us not forget the tax cut. Interest rates are headed downward and personal savings are moving upward. Peoples investments are headed out of the money markets into more directly productive investments.

Unemployment, the last of the ill effects of the recession, is still unacceptably high; nevertheless, in our own region, unemployment is down and total employment is up compared to a year ago. Add that to the very good news on inflation, interest rates, and especially taxes, I think that it is fair to conclude that a good beginning is being made. We should resist the temptation to label the residual effects of the 1980 Carter recession as a fault of the Reagan economic program.

Restoring a healthy economic climate is a complicated and long-term process and must be accomplished in the fairest, most painless way possible. Too many are suffering and struggling to make ends meet in our Nation today, and that is why I opposed those portions of the President's economic plan, which I thought were incompatible with the best interests of the people in our area of New York. This included my vote against the recently adopted tax bill to raise revenues of $98 billion over 3 years and against cuts in programs crucial to the wellbeing of low- to middle-income Americans.

It is important we recognize that a lot more needs to be done to bring about a full recovery. In that regard, we should thoroughly examine each new idea in this direction to improve the programs carefully and sympathetically, but we should not retreat. We are on the right road. Let us remind ourselves, when someone suggests a return to the old high taxing, high spending policies of yesterday, is not that how we got into this mess to begin with?e

23782 HAROLD "RIC" RICHTERMAN

HON. GREGORY W. CARMAN OF NEW YORK



• Mr. CARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I salute Harold "Ric" Richterman, of Syosset, N.Y., winner of this year's prestigious Ambrose M. Shotwell Award.

The award, presented each year since 1939 by the American Association of Workers for the Blind, honors individuals who have devoted themselves to helping blind people become independent through rehabilitation services.

Ric is currently director of the rehabilitation services division of National Industries for the Blind (NIB), where he assists sheltered workshops in developing vocational evaluation and prevocational training programs. He also assists them in grant writing, placement and in developing and presenting board-orientation programs. He joined NIB in 1969 following a 21-year affiliation with the Industrial Home for the Blind in Brooklyn, N.Y.

During the more than 30 years involvement in the field of blindness, Ric has served as technical consultant to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and has held memberships and committee posts with AA WB, the American Foundation for the Blind, the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf/Blind Youths and Adults, and the National Rehabilitation Association.

In 1971, he received AAWB's John H. McAulay Award, presented to the individual most instrumental in the placement of blind people, and later received the association's Leadership and Service in Work for the Blind Award. The National Accreditation Council gave him its Outstanding Service Award, and he also received the New York State Association of Workers for the Blind Award in recognition of distinguished service in the rehabilitation of blind people.

A graduate of the Savage School for Physical Education and Iowa State Teachers College with a B.A. in education, Ric earned his M.A. in vocational counseling from New York University.

I am sure that all of my colleagues will join with me in congratulating Harold "Ric" Richterman on this latest milestone in his long and distinguished career devoted to serving the disabled of our country.e

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS NATIONAL CAPITAL BUDGET

HON. BOB EDGAR OF PENNSYLVANIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 • Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee on Economic Development, of the House Committee on Public Works, began an important series of hearings on the question of developing a National Capital Budget. Chaired by Congressman JIM OBERSTAR, the subcommittee heard from Pat Choate, senior policy analyst for economics, TRW, Inc. Congressman BILL CLINGER and I coauthored H.R. 6591 to established a National Capital Budget. Mr. Choate's statement which follows should be helpful to all Members of the House in carefully considering this important issue. The statement follows: TESTIMONY OF PAT CHOATE, SENIOR POLICY

ANALYST FOR EcoNoMics, TRW INc., BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE NINETYSEVENTH CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 14, 1982 Mr. Chairman and Members, it is a privi

lege to testify before the Subcommittee on Economic Development on a topic of vital importance to our nation-the rebuilding of America's public works.

Between last fall when I last appeared here and today, the issue of deteriorating public works has moved to the forefront of national attention. There is a growing awareness that the economic renewal of our nation is heavily dependent on rebuilding the basic public facilities that underpin the economy. There is also a growing awareness that the quality of life of all citizens is now threatened because of pub1ic works decline.

In significant measure, this expanded public awareness is due to the work of this Subcommittee under the leadership of Mr. Oberstar, the Wednesday Group's work under the leadership of Mr. Clinger, and the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition's work under the leadership of Mr. Edgar.

I am particularly pleased to testify today on an important piece of legislation: namely, the Federal Capital Investment Budget Act of 1982 <H.R. 6591) which would create a national capital budget and an assessment of the nation's public facilities. This legislation is critically important because it would create the basic planning and management tools America lacks, but needs, to rebuild its deteriorating public facilities. INADEQUATE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS

As hearings of this Subcommittee have documented, the problem of decaying public facilities is extensive. It is also national in scope: deteriorating facilities are found in all parts of America-North, South, East, West, rural, urban, and suburban.

While there is growing awareness, perhaps even a national consensus, that America's basic public facilities are wearing out and that new actions will be required, the feder-al government lacks the basic planning and management tools needed to confront the challenge.

Specifically, annual federal public works expenditures are made in the absence of

September 15, 1982 even the most basic information and policies-the United States has no inventory of its public facilities; there is no assessment of the condition of existing facilities; there are few standards for the services to be provided by public facilities; there are no investment strategies or investment priorities; there is no uniform estimate of future investment requisites; there is no basic agreement between the federal, state and local governments on the allocation of public works authorities and responsibilities for the financing, construction and operation of specific types of projects; and there is virtually no federal oversight over those federal public works expenditures that are made.

These management weaknesses are important because the federal government is the dominant force in America's public facilities: half of all public works expenditures originate with the federal government, and federal regulations and matching requirements largely define the use of the other fifty percent financed by state and local governments.

The principal capital budgeting tool the federal government uses is "Special Analysis D of the Budget of the United States Government." Yet, the General Accounting Office in its report to the Congress, "Federal Capital Budgeting: A Collection of Haphazard Practices," concludes that this tool is ineffective for overall capital analysis. It presents outlays and is compiled after agency officials make their budget decisions. As such, it is not designed or used as a management tool or resource from which policymakers can infer or analyze federal capital investment policies or practices. The GAO notes that "Special Analysis D" is deficient in five basic ways:

Off-budget activities are excluded-such as the U.S. Postal Service;

It does not accurately portray the magnitude of capital investment activity since outlays from one category are netted against receipts from the same category. Gross figures are not presented.

Not all capital stock is represented since the analysis covers only three fiscal years. GAO notes that three years is far too short a time span to accurately account for additions to capital assets or their depreciation and disposal.

There is no consistent definition of physical capital; thus, individual federal agencies define physical capital they choose. GAO reports that in one agency the same item may be considered as capital and in another as a current item. For example, GAO reported that the General Services Administration considers capital investment as all new construction, alterations, and major repairs except for one-to-one replacements and equipment. Yet, the Corps of Engineers defines capital as basically the construction of water projects-new construction.

Finally, the GAO reports that Special Analysis D has a very unfocused and misleading categorization system. Specifically, outlays are classified as being that type of activity <capital or current outlay> in which the majority of funds in an overall program is used. Thus, if 51 percent of a discretionary program, such as the Community Development Block Grant program of HUD, is used for operating expenses, then the entire program is classified as a current expenditure even though several billion dollars of the program go for capital items. Clearly such classification practices seriously distort what is and is not being expended on capital items.

September 15, 1982 The limitations of Special Analysis D are

important and significant because as the GAO notes, "except for this special analysis, the federal government does not practice capital budgeting in a comprehensive way."

Because of the inadequacy of present federal public works practices, important and unwanted policy and administrative side-effects are created.

First, no overall view is taken of the nation's public works needs, the role of the respective levels of government in meeting these needs, or how individual federal investments relate to each other or to any long term strategy.

Second, in the absence of clearly documented needs and well articulated priorities, mis-priorities are created in the nation's public works expenditures.

Third, the short term is favored over the long term. However, many of the nation's most important public works challenges, such as rebuilding the Interstate Highway System and assuring adequate supplies of clean water will take a decade or more to finance and complete.

Fourth, in the absence of a coherent national public works investment strategy, which identifies investment needs and how to meet them, aggregate public infrastructure investment requisites cannot be systematically and thoughtfully considered against aggregate social and defense investment requirements-two areas which do have consolidated budgets and long term investment estimates. Moreover, as public facility investments were ignored and deferred in the 1960s and the 1970s in order that the limited public funds could be used to finance a growing menu of social expenditures. similarly public works investments will likely be ignored and deferred in the 1980s because of rising defense expenditures-particularly if these public facility needs are not clearly and systematically specified.

Finally, disordered federal public works practices create major obstacles to effective management of state and local public works activities. Since the federal financing dominates state and local public works activities, the federal government's short term focus, start and stop financing, and bias to new construction over rehabilitation. operation and maintenance expenditures makes coherent state and local policymaking and program administration almost impossible.

NEW PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Difficult and important choices on public works must be made. These choices will profoundly influence the national economy, local economies and the quality of life of virtually all Americans. The principal barrier to making such choices in a considered manner is: <a> the absence of reliable information; and the absence of a framework for the legislative and administrative decisions that must be made.

The creation of a systematic capital budgeting process-by creation of a comprehensive Special Analysis of Federal Capital Expenditures and a formal National Capital Budget-can provide such a framework. Such a framework is needed to permit the explicit and systematic consideration of:

1. The aggregate requirements for domestic non-defense public works investments in comparison to other claims such as social programs.

2. The relationship of public works investments to social, economic development and national defense objectives.

3. The impacts of government regulatory actions on public works investments and operations.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 4. The consequences of allocations of the

limited public works funds as between new construction, rehabilitation of existing facilities and operation and maintenance.

5. The social and equity issues associated with the distribution of public works funds among and between the various regions.

6. The consequences of varying allocations of public works responsibilities between the federal, state and local governments.

7. The sources, consequences and alternative financing sources for public works projects and their operation.

8. The use of annual public works expenditures as a countercyclical device of economic policy.

A special analysis of capital expenditures The first step in fostering an improved

capital budgeting process is the creation of a comprehensive special capital analysis in the annual Budget of the United States Government. This special analysis would provide the basic information for public works decisions by both the Executive and Legislative Branches.

Accordingly, to be most useful this special analysis would ideally chronicle the following:

<a> An estimate of aggregate capital investments <construction and rehabilitation> required to provide specific levels of specific public works services over several discrete periods of time such as one, five and ten years.

 An estimate of aggregate operation and maintenance investment requirements.

<c> The identification of sources of financing.

<d> Identify Federal public works investment priorities.

(f) Identify how the proposed annual capital expenditures contained in the proposed budget would relate to the nation's longer term needs and the federal government's longer term public works investment strategies.

Initially, the special analysis might include only domestic civil works and exclude defense facilities and equipment. <Attachment 1>.

If a Special Analysis is to be created, better information is required including:

<a> A uniform national set of standards of service to measure the specific level of service provided by ~pecific types of public works facilities, such as roads, sewer systems and water treatment systems;

(b) An inventory of the nation's public facilities;

<c> An assessment of the physical condition of these public facilities;

<d> An assessment of the levels of service being produced by these facilities;

<e> An estimate of the costs, over discrete periods of time, to continue specific present, higher and lower levels of service;

(f) A public works evaluation system that can be used for oversight of federal public works activities by the Executive and Congressional Branches;

The Federal Capital Investment Budget Act of 1982 would meet virtually all of these needs. Equally important, this Act appropriately places responsibility for the preparation of this information in the premier data and information agency of the Federal Government: the Department of Commerce.

A capital budget While there can be many interpretations

of what a capital budget is, ultimately it is merely the resultant of the capital budgeting process-documenting proposed actions of final decisions.

23783 The capital budget can be created in a va

riety of ways. The most direct and most efficient way would be for the Office of Management and Budget, as the central budget office, to distinguish in the Annual Budget of the United States by functional category, agency and program between capital and operational authorities, outlays, deficits, surpluses, and revenues. This will permit the President and the Congress to view federal capital expenditures in terms of:

<a> Aggregate capital investments; (b) Aggregate investments in specific

types of public works projects such as bridges or highways or sewer treatment systems;

<c> Aggregate investments in specific types of public works activities such as new construction, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance and operations; and

(d) Agency investments by types of public works projects and by related activitiesnew construction, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance and operation.

At the same time, it would be useful for the Executive Branch to, where possible, identify sources of financing-general funds, trust funds, or other means.

A federal capital budget can be created within the context of the unified budget, much as the credit budget operates within the context of the unified budget. To move beyond the short-term, annual focus of present practices, long term projections, such as up to 10 years, ideally would be prepared on anticipated capital and related operational expenditures.

The capital budget can be displayed in a variety of means, including as a part of the existing budget or, as several states such as Pennsylvania do, as a distinct document.

A national capital budget can be built on the existing budget process without a more sweeping reform and improvement in federal budgeting processes. Most important, federal capital investments can be better planned and managed without making any structural changes or consolidations in existing Federal agencies or Congressional Committees.

The Federal Capital Investment Budget Act of 1982 offers a pragmatic route to creating these badly needed new planning and management tools for the federal government's public works investments.

CONCLUSION

A primary cause of the decline of America's public facilities is the disordered public works policies, institutions and programs of the federal government. This disorder must be corrected. The most fundamental step in bringing long term direction and coherence to the nation's public works activities is to create a new Special Capital Analysis in the Annual Budget of the Federal Government and a National Capital Budget.

The creation of this special analysis will facilitate the preparation of better information, and provide a framework for the consideration of the many difficult financial and federalist choices that must be made. The capital budget will be the resultant of the larger process of making these choices.

Both the special analysis and the capital budget can be created without a reassignment of authorities in either the Executive or Legislative Branches and without a major reform of existing budgeting processes. The Federal Capital Investment Budget Act of 1982 <H.R. 6591> would create both these pragmatic planning and management tools. These tools are badly needed if America is to rebuild its basic public works.

23784 Thank you for the opportunity to testify

before this Committee. ATTACHMENT !-SELECTED DOMESTIC PUBLIC

FACILiriES

Education facilities: 1. Public Schools; 2. Public Libraries.

Energy Facilities: 1. Direct Generation; 2. Suppliers.

Fire Safety: 1. Facilities; 2. Equipment. Health: 1. Clinics and Hospitals; 2. Emer

gency Vehicles; 3. Specialized Equipment. Justice: 1. Law Enforcement Facilities; 2.

Jails and Prisons. Recreation: 1. Facilities. Solid Waste: 1. Collection Facilities and

Equipment; 2. Disposal Facilities and Equipment.

Telecommunications: 1. Radio/Television Facilities; 2. Disaster Preparedness Facilities and Equipment.

Telecommunications; 1. Radio/Television Facilities; 2. Disaster Preparedness Facilities and Equipment.

Transportaion; 1. Highways, Roads, Bridges and Related Facilities; 2. Rail Facilities and Equipment; 3. Port, River and Inland Water Facilities and Equipment; 4. Airport Facilities and Equipment; 5. Pipeline Facilities.

Water Supply: 1. Water Storage Facilities; 2. Water Transport Facilities; 3. Water Treatment and Distribution Facilities.e

DISSOLUTION OF THE MOSCOW HELSINKI GROUP

HON. MILLICENT FENWICK OF NEW .JERSEY


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mrs. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, at a news conference on September 8 in Moscow, the dissolution of the Moscow Helsinki Group was announced by Elena Bonner, wife of banished Nobel Prize winner Andrei Sakharov. This is a dismaying development. As one of the original Commissioners of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the government body charged with monitoring compliance with the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. I have followed closely the work of the courageous Moscow Helsinki monitors since the group was formed in May 1976. That the group found it necessary to disband "under pressure from the authorities" is a matter of profound regret and one which bodes ill for the future of security and cooperation in Europe.

The Moscow Helsinki Monitoring Group, along with several other Soviet Helsinki Groups that were subsequently formed, established the goal of monitoring compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act in the Soviet Union. Their right to undertake such actions is endorsed in Principle VII, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, where the participating states "confirm the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights in this

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS field." As most of my colleagues are aware, only a brief time after the formation of the group, the Helsinki Monitors were themselves made the victims of the repressions that they had begun to highlight and oppose.

One of those victims is Tatiana Osipova, a computer specialist. This 29-year-old mother was sentenced on April 2, 1981, to 5 years in a general regimen camp and 5 years of internal exile for "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda."

Osipova became a member of the Moscow Group in November 1977. In 1977 and 1978, she co-authored two "samizdat" articles on political repression in the U.S.S.R. with fellow group member, Viktor Nekipelov. Her husband, Ivan Kovalev, is a member of the Moscow Group as well. She has been the subject of KGB harassment and searches during her years as a human rights activist. In March 1979, she was forced to leave her position as a computer programer at the Moscow Oblast Pedagogical Institute.

Mr. Speaker, although the formal work of the Moscow Helsinki Group has been suspended, I am convinced that the long, difficult struggle for basic human rights will continue. Most of its members, nearly all of whom are now imprisoned or exiled, were aware when they committed themselves to their task that they faced an uphill battle involving much pain and suffering.

It is imperative that we, in this Congress, make clear to the authorities of the Soviet Union that the free world will not soon forget the sacrifices of the Helsinki Monitors-whose only offense was a commitment to Helsinki ideals.e

NATIONAL STRATEGIC MATERIALS AND MINERALS ASSESSMENTPROGRAM

HON. RAY KOGOVSEK OF COLORADO


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. KOGOVSEK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have introduced on September 9, 1982, H.R. 7084, legislation to establish a national strategic materials and minerals assessmant program for the United States. This legislation has been greatly needed by our country for some time, and the demand for this type of program is growing on a daily basis. Article after article has appeared in the press in regard to the country's concern about the availability of strategic materials and minerals resources. Yet, the Federal Government continues to operate under a system of "reacting to crisis," rather than "advanced planning" in order to avoid such crisis.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced during the 96th and

September 15, 1982 97th Congress, which raise concern about the continued availability of our natural resources for national security, industrial base, and economic security purposes of the United States. The legislation I am referring to, in most cases, removes certain areas of the country from mineral exploration and development. This, in and of itself, is not bad, because we must take measures which will protect our resources. However, although such legislation states that, "resource assessments shall continue," there is no mechanism in the law that will allow such work to be done. In fact, not only has this country relaxed its efforts to locate and classify its essential resources, in many instances, such efforts have been obstructed by the same hands that have called for its initiative.

Yet, in all the legislation that is being passed in Congress, very few proposals call for the expansion of knowledge and research to determine exactly what this country has for natural resources. We know our resources are vast. We also know that the United States holds strategic and essential resources. However, we have little idea about where it is, or how much we have. This traditionally has been left to the hands of private entities, and is often restricted as proprietary information. However, even this will no longer be available in many instances. Thus, when Congress acts in the future, we will be acting as an uninformed body. Furthermore, when a crisis comes about, and our national security, industrial base, or economic well-being is in jeopardy, Congress reaction, as an uninformed body, will have the propensity to adversely impact those measures we have enacted over the past 10 years to protect our natural resources. To make my point clear, imagine Congress reaction to a situation in which the United States was in battle, we have a cntical shortfall of a strategic mineral, and it was known only that the resource might be somewhere within a 100-mile radius of Rocky Mountain National Park. I am sure you can imagine what would happen to the park.

Mr. Speaker. this type of situation does not have to occur, and Congress should no longer have to make uninformed decisions. We have only to use the tools and mechanisms that arealready in existence. One of those tools is the Department of Energy facility at Grand Junction, Colo. The mechanism is the legislation I have introduced.

My bill proposes to transfer the uranium resource assessment program, including the Grand Junction facility and personnel. from the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior. Furthermore, it would expand the URA program to also in-

September 15, 1982 elude essential materials and minerals as det~rmined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Additionally, it will direct the Secretary of the Interior to:

First, develop an indepth evaluation of domestic and international strategic minerals and materials resources supply and demand.

Second, implement a specific program to coordinate ongoing efforts of minerals and materials assessment for this country.

Third, establish a managerial framework for continued assessments of strategic materials and minerals supply.

Fourth, establish an early warning system to notify the President and Congress of potential strategic materials and minerals shortfalls.

Fifth, provide recommendations to the President and Congress, including stockpiling and conservation, to offset potential shortfalls.

Protections are provided in the legislation to insure that laws such as the Wilderness Act, the Forest Management Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act are not conflicted by this proposal. Furthermore, my bill is not a mechanism to start opening up withdrawn areas to development. It only provides a mechanism to determine what resources we have on the public lands and where they are.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this very important piece of legislation, and establish a program to decrease the vulnerability of our national security, economic well-being, and industrial base in America.

The bill follows: H.R. 7084

A bill to provide for the establishment of a National Strategic Materials and Minerals Coordination Program, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That <a> this Act may be cited as the "National Strategic Materials and Minerals Assessment Act of 1982".

 The Congress finds that the United States lacks known domestic resources from which to produce, in necessary quantities, certain materials and minerals essential to its national security, industrial base, and economic well being. The Congress therefore declares that it is in the National interest to:

O> Develop an in-depth evaluation of domestic and international strategic materials and minerals resources supply and demand.

<2> Implement a specific program to coordinate ongoing efforts of strategic materials and minerals assessment for this country.

<3> Establish a managerial framework for continued assessments of strategic materials and minerals supply.

(4) Take positive action that will promote our national security, help ensure a healthy and vigorous economy, create American jobs, decrease the Nation's strategic minerals and materials vulnerability, and protect our natural resources and environment.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS DEFINITIONS

SEc. 2. As used in this Act, the term-<1> "Secretary" means the Secretary of

the Interior; and <2> "strategic materials and minerals"

means those natural resources essential to the security, industrial base, and economic well-being of the United States, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

SEc. 3. All programs, functions, responsibilities and personnel of the Uranium Resource Assessment Program, as established under the authority of the Department of Energy, shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior. Such transfer shall include the Grand Junction Facility, Grand Junction, Colorado, and all operating funds remaining in the Uranium Resource Assessment Program on the date of enactment of this Act.

MINERALS AND MATERIALS ASSESSMENT

SEc. 4. <a> The Secretary shall establish a National Strategic Minerals and Materials Assessment Program within the Department of the Interior, for purposes of carrying out the provisions and goals of this Act. Such program shall utilize the management framework and personnel of the Uranium Resource Assessment Program.

(b) The duties and functions of the Secretary under this Act shall include, but not be limited to, activities which-

(1) monitor, evaluate, and coordinate on a continuing basis the programs and activities of the Federal Government so as to carry out the provisions of this Act;

(2) identify and classify the Nation's areas of potential strategic material and mineral deposits on the public lands;

(3) identify policy conflicts with respect to resource management and strategic materials and minerals supply;

(4) establish periodic reviews of strategic materials and minerals issues including resource assessment, supply and demand, stockpiling, and conservation; and

<5> establish an Early Warning System which will monitor the conditions of supplies and demands for strategic materials and minerals. Such Early Warning System shall be designed to notify the President and the Congress of strategic material and mineral shortfalls in a timely manner, and to provide recommendations to alleviate such shortfalls.

PUBLIC LANDS

SEc. 5. <a> The Secretary shall conduct continuing strategic materials and minerals assessments of the public lands in such a manner that will not be injurious to fish antl wildlife, water sheds, cultural resources, habitat, or other resources of the public lands.

(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend, repeal, or modify any provision of the Wilderness Act <16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act < 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), except as provided in this subsection:

O> The Secretary may initiate strategic materials and minerals assessments on public lands withdrawn from mineral entry to the extent that such assessments can be accomplished with minimal surface disturbance.

<2> Any materials and minerals assessment on the public lands shall occur with the consultation and cooperation of the agency having management jurisdiction over such lands and resources.e

23785 VOTE "NO" ON THE

EXTRADITION ACT, H.R. 6046

HON. ANTHONY TOBY MOFFETI OF CONNECTICUT



e Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed that H.R. 6046, the Extradition Act of 1982, may soon be coming up for a vote on the House floor.

This legislation is intended to improve our ability to crack down on international terrorism. This is certainly a laudable goal, and one which I strongly support. However, H.R. 6046 has not received the careful consideration and analysis which should be demanded of such a wide-ranging proposal. As a result, the bill contains serious flaws which would undermine both the rights of Americans and our efforts to promote democracy and human rights abroad.

This legislation would eliminate the "political crimes defense" in extradition cases, if the defendant is charged with a crime of violence or conspiracy to commit violence. Thus, a contrived charge by a foreign government could secure extradition of a political refugee residing in this country. The legislation grants the State Department sole authority to deny an extradition request, if it determines that the request is politically motivated.

These proposed changes could lead , to the imprisonment, torture and murder of many Filipinos, Salvadorans, and others who have fled repressive regimes and sought refuge in the United States. For example, Benigno Aquino, a leading opponent of the Marcos regime in the Philippines and an associate at Harvard University's School of International Affairs, is one of over a dozen political refugees which the Marcos regime wants extradited. He has been charged with planning bombings in the Philippines, although the evidence against him is far from convincing. By stripping the courts of their power to prevent the extradition of political refugees, Aquino and others could become geopolitical pawns of the State Department.

Given the administration's record of certifying human rights progress in E1 Salvador, when exactly the opposite is true, and lauding democracy in the repressive regimes of the Philippines and Chile, the State Department simply cannot be trusted to make objective determinations on extradition cases. Narrow and sometimes questionable political considerations could take precedence over the lives of men and women who have fled persecution.

I am equally concerned that H.R. 6046 may violate our country's constitutional principles. By placing a legal

23786 matter which belongs in an impartial judicial system into the highly politicized executive branch, this bill violates our system of checks and balances. Further, the bill allows the detention of both foreign residents and U.S. citizens without charges, at the request of a foreign government.

We need to step up our efforts to fight terrorism. But it is not necessary for us to take police-state measures. Nor is it necessary for us to aid foreign dictatorships in persecuting those who seek to promote democracy and human rights in their native lands. H.R. 6046 could yield both of these results.

The changes sought by H.R. 6046 need a great deal more study. Further, we must receive assurances that civil liberties and human rights will not be sacrificed in the name of fighting international terrorism. I intend to oppose H.R. 6046 in its present form, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.e

PROBLEM PARENTS AND PROBLEM ABORTIONISTS

HON.HENRYJ.HYDE OF ILLINOIS


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite columnists, John Lofton, has written a typically interesting column in the August 30, 1982, Washington Times.

He discusses, with insight and candor, the anomaly of Planned Parenthood's claim to involve parents with adolescents who consult them and their legal efforts to bar parents from prior information about abortions for minors. I urge my colleagues to carefully read the following column: THis KIND OF SILENCE Is FAR FRoM GoLDEN

<By John Lofton> On Wednesday, the day after tomorrow,

in Indiana, a state law was to go into effect which would have required that parents be notified at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed on their minor daughter. But, Planned Parenthood is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop this law from being enforced because it "unduly burdens the right of minors to freely make and effectuate a decision to terminate pregnancy-a fundamental right of privacy."

Now, the first thing this legal action does is make a liar out of this organization's chief lawyer. On the CBS television program "Up To The Minute" several months ago, Harriet Pilpel, general counsel of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, declared flatly: "Every Planned Parenthood affiliate I know makes every effort to involve the parents with any adolescent who consults them."

But, in fact, this is obviously not true. What the Planned Parenthood people in Indiana are attempting to do is deny parents any legal right to know if their minor child is about to get an abortion.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The second thing the lawsuit in question

does is to allude to a right that simply does not exist: the absolute right of a minor to privacy. When I asked Ann McFarren, executive director of Planned Parenthood Associates of Northwest Indiana where such an absolute right comes from, she replied:

"It's our interpretation that this is the statement of the Supreme Court and it is one of the things we're seeking to get clarification on that still hasn't been clearly delineated."

Me: But your suit clearly implies that an absolute right of privacy already exists for minors. When has the Supreme Court ever so ruled?

McFarren: "Well, it hasn't excluded this either. And this is one of the things our suit will help clarify."

This is, of course, double-talk. What the Indiana Planned Parenthood groups are trying to do is not clari.fy any absolute right of privacy for minors, but create such a right.

Noting that their suit makes no distinction among minors, I ask: Are you really serious when you say that parents have no legal right to know, in advance, if their 10-, 11-, or 12-year-old daughter is about to get an abortion?

McFarren: <Pause> "I guess I'm feeling you're pushing for absolutes and if I had to go absolute one way or the other I suppose I would be pushed into that position yes.''

McFarren says that the difference between us is that I seem to be able to "very easily" distinguish what ought to be absolute whereas she views the world as "a little more complex than that." She adds that while parental involvement is preferable in "most situations," there are times when such involvement is "detrimental" to both parents and "the patient" <this is what Planned Parenthood people call 10-, 11- or 12-year-old girls).

But, McFarren is an absolutist. When it comes to the legal right of parents to know if their minor daughter is about to get an abortion, she is absolutely against any such right for any parents. Period.

Now, I don't doubt for a minute that if some parents did know, in advance that their minor daughter was about to get an abortion this would complicate the situation. But even so, in my judgment, all parents of all minors should still have this right. After all, what is at stake here is simply prior notification, not parental permission.

The fascinating thing is that the Ann McFarrens of the world can see the possibility of problem parents, but they never seem to consider the possibility of problem abortionists. And they do exist. A series of articles in the Chicago Sun-Times in 1978, titled "The Abortion Profiteers," revealed the following about Windy City clinics:

Dozens of abortion procedures were performed on women who were not pregnant;

An alarming number of women suffered such severe internal damage that all their reproductive organs had to be removed;

Some doctors performed abortions in only two minutes not even waiting for the anesthetic to take effect;

Some counselors were paid not to counsel but to sell abortions with sophisticated pitches and deceptive promises; and

Some referral services, for a fee, sent women to a disreputable Detroit abortionist whose dog, to one couple's horror, accompanied a nurse into the operating room and lapped blood from the floor.

It is into this potentially monstrous mael-strom that the Planned Parenthood crew

September 15, 1982 would hurl our minor daughters without even letting us know.

What the Planned Parenthood mindset represents is a throwback to the Dark and Middle Age concept of children as "miniature adults" -a dangerously naive notion written about in horrifying detail in a new book "The Disappearance of Childhood" <Delacorte Press> by Neil Postman, professor of media ecology at New York University. Says Postman:

"The liberal tradition <or as the Moral Majority contemptuously calls it, secular humanism> has had pitifully little to offer in this matter. For example, in opposing economic boycotts of TV sponsors, civil libertarians have taken the curious position that it is better to have Procter & Gamble's moral standards control television's content than Queen Victoria's. In any case to the extent that a political philosophy can influence cultural change, the liberal tradition has tended to encourage the decline of childhood by its generous acceptance of all that is modern and a corresponding hostility to anything that tries to 'turn back the clock.' But in some respects the clock is wrong, and the Moral Majority may serve as a reminder of a world that was once hospitable to children and felt deeply responsible for what they might become.''

To those of you who might say you don't care what Planned Parenthood is trying to do I would say: you ought to because you are paying for their unceasing efforts to destroy the American family. During the past five years, the Planned Parenthood Federation, at the international level, has had its snouth thrust deeply into the public trough to the tune of $49.9 million worth of your hard-earned federal tax dollars and mine. To finance its 188 U.S. affiliates, Planned Parenthood has gotten $248.3 million in federal tax dollars.

You'd think that with this kind of support from so many parents the folks at Planned Parenthood would allow parents to plan something.e

WORLD PRAISES PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES

HON. WM. S. BROOMFIELD OF MICHIGAN



e Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan's recent initiatives in the Middle East and elsewhere have captured headlines around the world and won new respect for American foreign policy among our allies and adversaries.

A recent article by the Christian Science Monitor's distinguished correspondent Joseph C. Harsch praised the efforts of the President and his new Secretary of State George Shultz as "rational, coherent, orthodox-and professional."

Headlined, "From Peking to Palestine, Reagan's Policies Gain Applause," Mr. Harsch singles out the Middle East peace initiative as the centerpiece of the administration's new foreign policy efforts. He said:

It was the smooth professionalism of the new Middle East initiative that most im-

September 15, 1982 pressed, and surprised, the diplomatic world.

Clearly something new has been added to the foreign policy operation in Washington-that something, presumably, being the quiet, common-sense approach of the new Secretary of State, George Shultz.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the following full text of this excellent assessment of U.S. diplomacy to anyone concerned about the course of U.S. foreign policy.

FROM PEKING TO PALESTINE, REAGAN'S POLICIES GAIN APPLAUSE

<By Joseph C. Harsch> President Ronald Reagan of the United

States is doing well with his "new start" toward peace in the Middle East. It was denounced in Moscow as being

"pro-Israel" and by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in Tel Aviv as being "antiIsrael." It was welcomed by the opposition Labor Party in Israel and has been given a mixed but generally favorable reception by the Jewish community in the US. It was treated as an interesting basis for

fresh thinking among the moderate Arab countries-particularly by Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. And even the more radical Arab leaders at the summit in Fez, Morocco, carefully refrained from rejecting it.

In the allied capitals of Western Europe, diplomats and politicians looked up in startled approval-and not only at the "new start" for the Middle East, which they recognized as being a well-tailored, well-balanced, and professionally launched operation.

They also noted with equal approval that President Reagan was backing away from his efforts to block the Siberian gas pipeline, and had also succeeded in getting his relations with mainland China back on the road opened up by Richard Nixon and traveled by Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

It almost seemed over the past week that Washington foreign policy had suddenly become rational, coherent, orthodox-and professional. It was the smooth professionalism of the

new Middle East initiative that most impressed, and surprised, the diplomatic world. Clearly something new has been added to the foreign policy operation in Washington-that something presumably being the quiet, common-sense approach of the new secretary of state, George Shultz.

The story of how it was done began to surface during the past week. Here are some of the things that came out.

The details of the American position which the President set forth in his speech of September 1 had been worked out after consultations with Arab leaders in the Middle East, with opposition party leaders in Israel, with leaders of the American Jewish community at home, and with the chief foreign policy experts of previous administrations. These included Henry Kissinger from Nixon-Ford days, and Zbigniew Brzezinski and Mr. Carter himself from the Carter era.

One result was that when the President spoke, a great deal of support had already been arranged, and came into view. Mr. Carter was in print the following day approving what the President proposed and contradicting the Begin contention that the "new start" was a departure from Camp David. On the contrary, said Mr. Carter, who was there, it accorded in every detail with the letter and intent of Camp David.

89-059 0-86-41 <Pt. 17>

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The disapproval of Moscow was, of course,

not prearranged in Washington. But it was a welcome though unintentional assist. To have Moscow call the President's program "pro-Israel" helped to neutralize the Begin contention that it was unfriendly to Israel.

The planning included a surprise for Mr. Begin. A letter, giving details, went to him on August 31. He was reported to be furious at not having had previous warning and not having been "consulted." The reproach fell on deaf ears at the White House, which remembers painfully that Mr. Begin invaded deep into Lebanon without consulting Washington and continued the bombing of west Beirut well after the President had said publicly that he wanted the bombing stopped and that he had "lost patience."

Besides, said White House officials, if Mr. Begin is told of such moves in advance, he is liable to "leak" the facts and launch his own counter-propaganda operation before Washington gets moving. Mr. Begin in this case was surprised. There was the expected "leak" from his offices. His spokesman claimed that Camp David had been betrayed.

But the White House moved the Reagan speech up by one day. The President's proposals got the top headlines. Mr. Begin's objections came second. And, ever since, news of support for or interest in the President's plan has been keeping pace with Mr. Begin's attack on it. The Reagan White House is learning how to play the public relations game against Mr. Begin, a past master in this department.

What prospects for progress along the lines the President has now proposed?

Mr. Begin obviously has not the slightest intention of giving up his own plan, which calls for Israel in effect annexing all of the "occupied territories."

The Arabs under Mr. Begin's plan would end up in a condition much like that of the blacks in South Africa when squeezed into "tribal homelands." The Arabs would have local control over their own fragmented communities but no true "self-determination."

This is the exact opposite of the intention of Camp David and of the new Reagan proposals.

Which concept will prevail? Mr. Begin has the armed forces to hold

control over the area. So long as he is prime minister, he will presumably keep a tight grip on all the occupied territories. And the White House has specifically renounced the idea of putting "pressure" on him by withholding weapons and aid.

But does that literally mean no pressure? Once before Washington wanted a mili

tary withdrawal by Isreal. That was at the end of the 1956 Suez "crisis." Israeli troops occupied the entire Sinai Peninsula. President Eisenhower wanted them back behind their prewar lines.

Mr. Eisenhower did not apply overt "pressure." He did not cancel existing deliveries. He just refused to talk to any Israeli government official about such things as oil-until they pulled their troops back out of Sinai. They did.

In this case, Mr. Begin faces an immediate challenge in the Knesset. The cost of his invasion of Lebanon has been heavy. Israel will be wanting replacements for lost equipment and funds to keep its economy going. Mr. Reagan can afford to let time work inside the political fabric of Israel.

He is offering Israel a new chance to get peace with its Arab neighbors in exchange for territory. The urge for peace may grow

23787 inside Israel and among Israel's American supporters to the point where Mr. Begin will either give in or be replaced by a new leadership in Israel. Polls within Israel suggest this is already happening.

Meanwhile, Mr. Reagan has walked back from his hard-line stand on the pipeline affair. And the presence of Richard Nixon in Peking this past week testifies to the fact that U.S.-China relations are back on track after the Taiwan detour of last year.e

SOCIETY OF PLASTICS ENGINEERS ANNIVERSARY; FRANK S. MARRA HONORED

HON. JIM DUNN OF MICHIGAN



• Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Society of Plastics Engineers, a group founded in Michigan and about to celebrate its 40th anniversary on September 21. I would also like to recognize and congratulate Frank S. Marra of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., who will be honored as the SPE Detroit chapter's 1982 outstanding member during the anniversary celebration.

Now headquartered in Brookfield Center, Conn., the SPE was founded in 1942 by the late Fred 0. Conley during a meeting at Tam-0-Shanter Country Club in Orchard Lake, Mich. What started as an organization of 132 members has grown through the past 40 years into a worldwide association with 84 chapters and close to 25,000 members.

The SPE represents the engineering side of the plastics industry, with "plastics" being one of the most important and growing industries in the United States. The SPE and its members have worked closely with the automotive industry in weight reduction programs to aid the energy conservation programs of the U.S. Government. Robert D. Forger, the executive director of SPE, and Thomas W. Haas, SPE's 1982-83 president, will both discuss the history and future of the SPE at its 40th anniversary celebration, to be held at Tam-0-Shanter Country Club, the site of its original founding.

In addition, the Detroit section will honor Frank S. Marra, president of the D-M-E Co., as its 1982 outstanding member. A listing of Mr. Marra's accomplishments during the past 35 years shows that he is truly deserving of this honor.

Mr. Marra worked as a co-op toolmaker while in vocational high school and was in the U.S. Naval Reserves from 1945-46. He received a degree in mechanical engineering from Lawrence Institute of Technology in 1949 and served in the U.S. Navy in 1950 during the Korean war.

23788 He joined D-M-E as a sales manager

in 1949 and later became advertising and marketing manager and executive vice president at the company. In 1968, he was named president and general manager and 2 years later became a senior vice president and director for the plastics group of the VSI Corp., which had purchased D-M-E in 1961. Mr. Marra became an executive vice president of VSI Corp. on October 1, 1981, and it was recently announced that he will become president and chief operating officer of VSI, effective October 1 of this year.

His contributions to the SPE began in 1950 and have continued to the present. In 1958 he was a Detroit section vice president and from 1959 to 1964 served on the Detroit section board of directors. He has been a cochairman and member of the National SPE Credentials Committee since 1961. In 1978, Mr. Marra became a charter member of the board of directors SPE Moldmakers and Mold Design Division and the I. T. Quarnstrom Foundation. Since 1977, he has also been a member of the SPE Moldmakers' Division Policy Board. He has spoken at conferences thoughout the United States and Canada and has received several awards, including the national certificate of merit in 1974 and a distinguished member award in 1979. Mr. Marra and his wife, Phyllis, have three children and live in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me have this time to recognize an outstanding organization and one of its finest individuals. I offer my sincere congratulations and admiration for their past accomplishments and want to extend my best wishes for a prosperous future.e

HISPANIC AEROSPACE WORKERS CONSORTIUM HONORS FIRST HISPANIC ASTRONAUT

HON. MAITHEW G. MARTINEZ OF CALIFORNIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, when America's first astronauts ventured into space nearly a quarter century ago, the hearts and minds of people around the world went with them. The same is true today and we are all delight in the successes of the Space Shuttle missions.

It is only fitting, then, that as we celebrate National Hispanic Heritage Week, we pay tribute to the first astronaut of Hispanic descent. I am speaking of Dr. Franklin R. Chang, who is currently a member of the NASA team.

Dr. Chang is being honored this coming Sunday, September 19, by the Hispanic Aerospace Workers Consorti-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS urn, an organization of employees at Rockwell International in Los Angeles. The consortium was established to provide a communication link among Hispanic employees regarding job opportunities, resources, and general information relevant to Rockwell Hispanic employees. They also work with students in helping them to prepare for the type of background that high technology companies such as Rockwell are looking for.

The Hispanic Aerospace Workers Consortium has a number of other objectives, as well, establishing liaison and lines of communication with other minority communities, legislative representatives, and the community in general.

When Dr. Chang makes his first flight on the Space Shuttle in the near future, he will carry with him the hopes and aspirations of 20 million Hispanic people. Dr. Chang was selected as an astronaut candidate by NASA in 1980. Since then, he has completed the 1-year training and evaluation period making him eligible for assignment as a mission specialist on future Space Shuttle flight crews.

Dr. Chang has a remarkable background. Born in 1950 in San Jose, Costa Rica, he was graduated from the University of Connecticut in 1973 with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. In 1977, he received a doctorate in applied physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At MIT, Dr. Chang became involved in the U.S.-controlled fusion program and did extensive research in the design and operation of fusion reactors.

After finishing at MIT, Dr. Chang joined the technical staff of the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory. His work there was geared strongly toward the design and integration of control systems for fusion reactor concepts and experimental devices. In 1979, Dr. Chang developed a novel concept to guide and target fuel pellets in an inertial fusion reactor chamber and, more recently, has been engaged in the design of novel magnetic systems for energy recovery and impurity control in fusion powerplants. He has presented numerous papers at technical conferences and in scientific journals.

In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Chang has worked as a house manager in an experimental community residence for deinstitutionalizing chronic mental patients. More recently, he became involved as an adviser with a rehabilitation program for Hispanic drug users.

Today, I am sure you will join me in saluting Dr. Chang and the Hispanic Aerospace Workers Consortium, and, wishing them continued success.e

September 15, 1982 COLUMBIA: NO GEM IN OHIO

HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN OF OHIO



e Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, all of us are aware that the price of natural gas to our consumers is increasing at alarming rates. We are reminded of this in every day's mail. Our constituents may not realize it, but the bizarre and Byzantine natural gas law passed in 1978 by this Congress at the request of President Carter is to blame. How else could prices go up 40 percent when demand for gas is down by a dramatic amount? After all, we have seen the demand for oil fall over the last 2 years and the price has fallen accordingly. This is understandable. Sellers of oil keep lowering the price in order to induce reluctant consumers to buy. Oil prices were down by 9.7 percent in June 1982 irom their January 1981 level.

Natural gas prices still go up, completely oblivious to the reality that the demand for natural gas is decreasing with every price increase. Instead of leveling off, prices go up still further because the pipelines which buy the natural gas from producers can pass through the ever-escalating price of gas to their consumers automatically without being subject to the natural resistance of the market or regulation. How is this possible? Why, it is the gift of Congress-the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 which provides incentives for a pipeline to buy gas at a price higher than the real world of the market can support. The NGPA has many fundamental flaws-flaws which led me in 1978 to plead for its rejection by this House.

At this point in the RECORD, Mr. Speaker, I would like to include an article from a newspaper in my State of Ohio, the Licking Countian, on my efforts to bring some sense to the Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., the pipeline company which delivers gas to Ohio. Ms. June Martin, its author, does a very good job of telling a complicated story in an understandable and very readable manner. As a newspaper editor myself, I compliment her journalistic skills.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [The Licking <Ohio> Countian, July 23,

1982] COLUlllBIA: CADILLAC PRICES

<By June Martin> Columbia Transmission Corporation, the

pipeline supplier of Columbia Gas of Ohio, is stopping production of over 9000 gas wells in Ohio due to surplus on the market. The kicker is that Columbia is buying high priced gas from Louisiana and Oklahoma. Storming the walls of this utility kingpin is Representative Clarence "Bud" Brown, candidate for governor on the Republican ticket.

September 15, 1982 Filing a "friend of the court" brief with

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Brown complained that Columbia has been one of the highest purchasers of expensive deregulated gas, both by volume and by price and plans on passing the cost to the consumer. He also charged that while buying from "deep gas" producers of the Southeastern United States, Columbia has forced Ohio gas wells to be shut in. Following a 44-day shut-in in 1981, Columbia required producers to shut their wells for 90 days this summer or reduce production by half for a period of 180 days. This Ohio gas would be substantially cheaper than the prices Columbia has been paying to Louisiana or Oklahoma producers.

Columbia meanwhile contends that in order to get secure and sufficient supplies of natural gas, it must engage in the bidding war with other pipelines for unregulated gas and pay amounts in excess of $10 per MCF (million cubic feet>. However, for six months, ending February 28, 1982, just over 9 percent of Columbia's gas supply purchases from producers were of section 107 uncontrolled gas at an average cost of $8.39 per MCF. During the same period 35 percent of Columbia's purchases from gas producers were of section 104 "old" controlled gas at an average cost of $1.53 per MCF.

Also, Columbia has its own deregulated gas production, and it would be interesting to know how much Columbia is buying its own "deep gas" at Cadillac prices, rolling those costs through to consumers and dumping that Cadillac gas to off-system purchasers at Chevy prices.

Brown claims that unlike Transcontinental and Michigan-Wisconsin pipelines, Columbia has done nothing to ease the burdens its has placed on the consumers it serves. Since May 1, Transco has cut the costs of its 107 gas purchases in half by refusing to take any more $6-$10 gas. It has done this by exercising all the market-out clauses which it has in its gas purchase contracts. Michigan-Wisconsin has also exercised market-out clauses and has reduced its 107 gas costs by roughly $3 per MCF.

Strangely, Columbia cannot follow Transco's lead because Columbia did not negotiate with producers for any market-out rights prior to June 1, 1985. Since Columbia refuses to make its 107 contracts public, it is not known to what extent Columbia could reduce its "deep gas" purchase costs. This failure to use contractual safeguards which would have alleviated the damage caused by Columbia's own misjudgement in the amount of gas the corporation would need, makes it the responsibility of the corporation, and not that of the Ohio consumers, contends Brown.

If Columbia would do what Transco had done, Ohio gas consumers would receive less of an increase in cost and Ohio gas producers would sell gas instead of shutting it in, because a good deal of Ohio gas is competitive at $5 MCF.

Back in March, Brown testified before the Columbia Gas hearing of FERC in Columbus. At that time he pointed out our country's strange dual market of regulated and deregulated gas prices, which has caused serious market ordering problems.

President Carter's Natural Gas Policy Act <NGPA>, guarantees pipelines the right to pass through to customers the costs incurred in purchasing, as long as those prices are not the result of fraud or abuse. The mechanism for this pass through is the "purchased gas adjustment." The issue in the Columbia case is whether they should

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS be permitted to pass to consumers the cost of purchasing high priced gas when there appears to be little or no economic justification for Columbia to incur this cost. The corporation itself projects a surplus of supply through 1985.

Marketing problems have been created by the NGPA's part regulated and part deregu~ lated pricing structure. For example, currently regulated well-head gas prices are far below the prices that gas would bring in a free market. Depending upon how much of this federally priced regulated cheap gas a pipeline has, it can afford to bid up the price of unregulated gas supplies because the price consumers pay is the average cost of all of a pipeline's gas over a given time. Thus prices for gas in the narrow deregulated categories are far above prices that would prevail in a free market where all producers of gas had to compete against each other for sales and all pipelines competed freely with each other for the least expensive sources of natural gas.

For example, the average well-head price of gas was $1.91 per MCF in Sept. 1981 <equivalent to $11 per barrel of crude om. Much regulated gas is being sold at prices below this; however, because it is selling at prices put under contract years ago when gas was less costly to find. Uncontrolled gas is frequently selling for more than $9 per MCF <equivalent to crude oil cost $50 barrel). The only apparent constraint on prices pipelines seem wiling to pay for gas in unregulate categories is the pipeline's ability to sell gas at its average price. If that average price gets too high, industrial and residential consumers might choose to switch to oil.

The net effect of this strange dual market is that the benefit of price controlled gas is not going to customers, but to producers of unregulated gas who are receiving prices that are higher than market prices would be without this patchwork of regulations-a benefit not enjoyed by the shut-in Ohio producers.

As the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, Brown strongly opposed the NGPA when it was approved in 1978, arguing that "if there ever was a legislative proposal that embraced all the flaws, it is this bill."e

THE WORSENING PLIGHT OF SOVIET JEWRY

HON. ANTHONY TOBY MOFFEIT OF CONNECTICUT



• Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Speaker, the past several months have brought intensified Soviet persecution of Jews, particularly those wishing to emigrate.

This year, Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union has averaged less than 250 people per month. This is the lowest level in over 10 years. Harassment of Jews and attacks on Jewish study and cultural groups have increased dramatically. Only a few days ago, Soviet officials arrested Felik;:; Kochubievski, a Jew who has been waiting for an exit visa for over 4 years. Charged with distributing antiSoviet articles, Mr. Kochubievski joins dozens of other Jewish prisoners of

23789 conscience in the Soviet Union who have been imprisoned for their determination to practice their faith and to make Israel their home.

Like many of the tens of thousands of Jewish refuseniks, Mr. Kochubievski has been denied the right to family reunification guaranteed by the Helsinki accords, which the Soviet Union has signed. He has two sons in Israel. Like many of his fellow refuseniks, he was dismissed from his job for his desire to emigrate. And like many other refuseniks, he may serve a prison sentence, possibly in a hard labor camp, for speaking out on behalf of his cultural and civil rights.

Against this backdrop of deepening despair, it is heartening that the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Human Rights today approved House Concurrent Resolution 336, legislation which I introduced earlier this year to urge the Soviets to adopt a more humane emigration policy. The Human Rights Subcommittee staff and the National Conference on Soviet Jewry deserve special thanks for their diligent efforts to get this resolution passed. This resolution, which also calls upon the President to discuss Soviet Jewry at upcoming summit talks, grain and trade negotiations, and other appropriate opportunities, is a modest step toward reversing the dismal plight of Soviet Jews. I hope that the full Foreign Affairs Committee and the House will now act quickly to approve this resolution.

It is hard for those of us who take our freedom for granted to understand the ruthless repression which Jewish refuseniks must bear. They are systematically denied academic and career opportunities, and enjoy no freedom of religion, emigration, or cultural expression. We in Congress must continue to speak out on behalf of these brave people, who cling to their cultural heritage in spite of the consequences. And we must continue to press the Soviets to pursue a more humane and civilized emigration policy.e

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, HOUSE VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

HON. RONALD M. MOITL OF OHIO


·wednesday, September 15, 1982

e Mr. MOTTL. Mr. Speaker, a hearing on agent orange was held this morning by the House Veterans' Affairs Subcor..l.Dlittee on Oversight and Investigations. I would like to submit for the RECORD my colleague TOM DASCHLE'S opening statement.

23790 STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM DASCHLE

Mr. Chairman I appreciate your willingness to hold these hearings today and allow me to be a participant.

In my f•Jur years in the Congress I have not faced an issue as frustrating and perplexing as Agent Orange. Nonetheless, a major step forward was achieved last year with the passage of legislation (Public Law 97-72) approving priority health care and medical treatment for Vietnam Veterans suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. The House of Representatives and Senate unanimously agreed that this was a necessary and reasonable step to assure Vietnam Veterans of our commitment to their concerns until the various scientific studies shed more light on the complexities of this issue.

From the beginning I have had doubts about the Veterans' Administration's ability and commitment to fulfill the mandate in Public Law 96-151, which ordered the VA to conduct an epidemiological study into the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam Veterans. Unfortunately, my worst fears have come true and I believe that certain parties in the VA are deliberately trying to delay the Agent Orange study. Mr. Chairman, this study was ordered nearly three years ago and it hasn't even begun. I believe the reason the VA is delaying the inception of this study is that they do not want to face the ultimate decision of compensating Vietnam Veterans and their families. This is evidenced by the fact that the VA has still not developed a statutory framework for the resolution of veterans claims, despite the fact that a number of scientific studies outside the VA will be completed within the next several months. To add insult to injury, the VA has admitted that it will be 1988 or 1989 until this study is completed. This is unacceptable and I am outraged.

This past March, two scientific review panels, the Office of Technology Assessment <OTA> and the White House Agent Orange Work Group Science Panel approved a protocol design for the VA study as well as an exposure index developed by the Army Agent Orange Task Force. The exposure index will be used in selecting study cohorts of veterans who were or were not exposed to the herbicide during their service in Vietnam. Virtually every relevant agency in the Federal government is represented on the Science Panel or the Work Group, including the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, EPA, OMB, National Cancer Institute, Center for Disease Control. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health <NIOSH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS>, OTA, the VA and others.

Despite the approval of all these agencies, the VA decided in May, four months after submitting the second protocol design to the Science Panel and OT A, that yet another scientific review was necessary. This additional review, conducted by the National Academy of Sciences is still underway.

Then, in July, the VA announced to the Science Panel that the exposure index previously agreed to needed further refinement. Today, six months after the initial agreement on the index had been reached, and two months after announcing their dissatisfaction to the Science Panel, the VA has still not finalized and sent to the DOD the changes they now seek to make so the Army Agent Orange Task Force can continue their process of cohort selection.

The VA has had innumerable problems since this effort first began including the re-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS jection of the initial protocol design. I believe these problems have been the direct result of a lack of in-house expertise in this area. At this very moment the VA still does not have an epidemiologist on board and I believe that many of their problems are directly related to this lack of in-house expertise. A full time epidemiologist should be hired immediately so that crucial decisions relative to the study are made by an expert in the field.

Mr. Chairman, the delays in this study are an unconscionable affront to the dignity of Vietnam Veterans and their families. Vietnam Veterans will not stand for it, the American people will not stand for it and the U.S. Congress most certainly will not stand for it. Unless the VA decides on final exposure criteria as well as whether to include a third cohort of veterans who didn't serve in Vietnam within 7 days of this hearing and begin a planned pilot study within 30 days, I believe that this committee should take action to relieve the VA of all responsibilities relative to this long delayed study. I am having legislation drafted at this moment to achieve this end.

Finally, it is time to take action with respect to compensating Vietnam Veterans with soft tissue cancers. Three Swedish epidemiological studies have documented increased soft tissue cancer rates in Swedes exposed to herbicides containing dioxin. In addition, a National Institute of Safety and Health <NIOSH) dioxin registry has revealed significantly higher rates of soft tissue cancers in U.S. industrial workers exposed to dioxin. Considering this plethora of scientific data and the fact that soft tissue cancers are exceedingly rare in young age groups, compensation is not out of order.

Mr. Chairman, Vietnam Veterans deserve better than to wait until 1988 or 1989 for the VA to provide answers. Every other government body now conducting research on Agent Orange, including the Air Force and Center for Disease Control, will be providing clues to the specific hazards of Agent Orange no later than the end of next year. Even the Australian government, which sanctioned their own studies long after Congress was forced to order a study, expect to complete all their efforts next year.

As Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, "The only limits on the realization of tomorrow are our doubts today." Mr. Chairman, there already exist too many doubts about this study to allow these delays to go on.e

WHAT THE THREE SISTERS PREDICT FOR THE CLINCH RIVER REACTOR

HON. SID MORRISON OF WASHINGTON


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the nuclear age, the United States has been the world leader in the peaceful uses of the atom. Today, all the industrialized countries of the world have strong nu-clear power programs in place. In addition, they are committed to the development and commercialization of advanced nuclear breeder technology.

September 15, 1982 Although the United States took an

early lead in breeder development, France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union have been operating demonstration plants since the 1970's. West Germany is now building an intermediate-sized demonstration plant, and Japan will soon begin construction of its own loop-type plant. A consortium of European partners, led by France, will operate the 1,200-megawatt Superphenix by 1984 and the Soviets are designing a 1,600-megawatt plant.

Despite the broad base of foreign actual breeder operating experience, technologically the United States still leads all other countries, due partially to the experience gained from the fast-flux test facility in my district. In designing the first U.S. demonstration plant, the Clinch River breeder reactor, American scientists have incorporated features and innovations no other country can claim. In fact, Europe and Japan have shown interest in incorporating some of our technology in their breeder plants. And yet, there are those, under the guise of being fiscally conservative, who would have us abandon this leadership and continue to rely on foreign entities to supply our energy needs.

I believe it is especially appropriate that today, while the Clinch River foes rally around to defeat this important project, Members on both sides of the issue take time to read Llewellyn King's editorial from the August 26 Energy Daily. It provides background and insight that I believe will be helpful.

WHAT THE THREE SISTERS PREDICT FOR THE CLINCH RIVER REACTOR

<By Llewellyn King) Access to Washington from Virginia,

where much of its working population lives, is made more difficult because of a shortage of bridges across the Potomac. As man's works go, bridges are among the most benign, fitting into the landscape and enhancing rather than detracting from the environment. The world would be poorer without the Golden Gate, Sydney Harbor, the Bridge of Sighs, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, or even, yes, the Brooklyn Bridge. Therefore, for a long time it was planned to build a sixth bridge into Washington from northern Virginia to be called the Three Sisters Bridge. But it was not to be. Even after some of the pilings were sunk in the late 1960s, a coalition of assorted activists under the banners of environmentalism, civic action and consumerism, waged a bitter fight that resulted in abandonment of the facility.

The arguments covered now familiar landscape: it would be too expensive, it would destroy community life in Washington, it would damage the river, Washington would become another Los Angeles, and many more. The activists won and there is no bridge.

The result is that northern Virginia commuters sit in long lines, particularly on the George Washington Parkway which would have been most relieved by the bridge. They bum gasoline and pollute the air. Addition-

September 15, 1982 ally, two ugly satellite communities have grown up on the western bank of the Potomac, Rosslyn and Crystal City. Now a candidate for mayor of Washington is actually proposing busing city workers to jobs that have been forced out into the surburban communities.

The architects of this urban error are not to be found; gone on, no doubt, to defend the people's interest elsewhere.

The saga of the Three Sisters Bridge is brought to mind by the fate of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which may be sealed next month on the floor of the House of Representatives. Rep. Claudine Schneider <R-R.I.>, a freshman congresswomen, is leading a fight to delete funding for the breeder and so terminate a project that has been a central part of the nation's nuclear strategy for a decade and half. The matter at issue is not so much the merits or otherwise of Clinch River, but a case of how a determined bunch of activists can take it upon themselves to force a contrived conclusion to a national project.

The Clinch River Breeder Reactor has had a troubled history and I have been among its critics for many years. The project was conceived as a partnership between the utility industry and the government by the former Atomic Energy Commission. At its inception, Clinch River, in the cost estimates of the day, would have been a financially shared project. As it stands today, the demonstration breeder is a project nearly totally financed by the Treasury with a utility contribution of only $270 million. The world has changed around Clinch River in every respect: the cost of money the need for power, projections of uranium resources, the future of the nuclear option itself and the ability of the utility industry as presently constituted to purchase breeders in their second generation. It is not hard to make a case for re-examining the project and particularly for re-examining its financing. rut its detractors, who are led by a coalition of environmentalists of a neo-Luddite persuasion, are not concerned with giving it a trial before its execution. Schneider says she is 95 percent certain that she has the votes to do the dastardly deed while the Congress is considering a continuing resolution to finance the government. If Schneider is right, Clinch River will be put away in an offhand way by congressman acting not on the considered evidence for the continuation of the project in the new realities of 1982, but reacting to the cumulative lobbying power of those who are ideologically opposed to nuclear power and who have made Clinch River the target of their vengeance since the inception of the project.

An article in The Congress Watcher, a publication of the Ralph Nader organization, explains how it was done. The publication says: "One of the primary causes for alarm among congressional backers of the project is the grassroots organizing campaign instituted by Congress Watch in concert with the National Taxpayers Coalition Against Clinch River. The campaign targeted twenty-five 'key' incumbents in the northeast and midwest who voted for Clinch last year for intensive local lobbying. Grassroots activity is also being encouraged in 200 other districts around the country.

"The purpose of the campaign was to generate enough constituent and media/editorial pressure to convince the Representatives to withdraw their support for CRBR. To do this, the coalition assigned an organizer to each of the target districts. There, organiz-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ers brought together coalitions of labor, peace, and environmental groups in opposition to the reactor, encouraged local opposition candidates to take public stands against Clinch and challenge the incumbent on his pro-Clinch voting record, and generated local letter-writing campaigns, telephone and telegram trees and constituent meetings with the Representatives.

"To fuel the fight, the coalition provided the districts with background information; buttons, bumper stickers, and brochures were sent to those indicating an interest in working locally against the Breeder. Often, one or two district residents acted as local coordinators, handling the details of press conferences, setting up preliminary meetings between local groups and organizers, and working with local media."

The preceding is eloquent testimony to how a bunch of ideologues dedicated to a single purpose can manipulate the Congress to a course of action that its instigators will later claim reflects the will of the people.

It is no way to bring great projects to fruition. It is a way to litter the landscape with the ruins of many beginnings and no conclusions, and it is an appalling way of preparing for the future. It is also an egregious waste of the talent and money already spent.

I've argued in the past that a demonstration breeder reactor should have been built expeditiously on a government site and examined for its licensability retrospectively but not licensed in the conventional way. That way a considerable amount of money would already have been saved, the reactor would be operating and the technical experience would be part of the world's sum of knowledge. But despite the protestations to the contrary of its critics, the nuclear community, going back to its earliest days when weapons manufacture was wrested from the Pentagon, has had a recalcitrant strain of egalitarianism.

It was the hated Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that conceived the radical concept of public participation in licensing. For example, there is no public participation in the issuance of an airworthiness certificate for a jetliner, and jetliners have a more palpable bearing on the health and safety of the public than do remotely-located reactors.

Likewise, it was the Atomic Energy Commission, painted by its critics as the embodiment of public insensitivity, which insisted that the first demonstration breeder reactor should be licensed and should be designed to demonstrate that breeder reactors can be licensed according to the prevailing licensing regime, a many-splendored thing.

It is in large measure because of these publicly-minded criteria that the road for CRBR has been so bumpy.

The project, insofar as it exists, does so in a series of warehouses around Knoxville for want of regulatory approval of site preparation. Considering its difficulties, it has shown stunning endurance. President Carter tried to stop it and the Congress funded it. Even among nuclear supporters it has had its telling critics including, in and out of office, James Schlesinger. It is not universally loved in industry and because, for the Carter years, it had to be financed against the will of the Administration, it has not been honestly evaluated for some time. In the nearest thing to such an evaluation-a General Accounting Office report in July-it received a surprising bill of health. In short, GAO said finish it.

The Administration and the Congress need to take a new look at Clinch River; at

23791 its future in view of the unravelling of the nuclear power program, and the expectations for uranium supply. It also needs to be assessed for its technological contribution. But most of all, it needs to be looked at in terms of how it can be financed <should the decision to proceed be in the affirmative> off the budget in order to protect it from the wrath of the white-wine-and-quiche crusaders who, if they lose this year, will be back next year and the year after.

The figures do not look all that bad; in fact, they are quite encouraging. While its critics have pointed to the massive <and there's no denying that> escalation in price, they fitfully ignore the corresponding increase in the price of electricity which makes the project close to economically viable.

Schneider says that the project will cost $7.5 billion and Westinghouse, the prime contractor, is talking in the region of $3.2 billion. Estimates of the value of the electricity which will be produced and sold to the Tennessee Valley Authority extend over the life of the plant from $3 billion to $8 billion. For a demonstration plant, that does not sound like a turkey. If these figures can be substantiated, a case can be made for continuing the project and for financing it with a loan guarantee, or possibly even a bond sale, or some mixture of these devices.

But no case for or against CRBR can be made without some consideration for its international impact. Europe and Japan stand to gain marginally useful technological data from Clinch River. Because of its flexible design it allows for relatively easy interchange of heat exchangers. This could help other nations with less flexible designs, which have suffered major heat exchanger problems. Similarly, the denser U.S. breeder fuel will prove of interest to reprocessors who do not know what the characteristics of the fuel would be.

But that is by the by. The central issue to our allies is one of dependability in partnership. There are already discussions between Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and other interested governments on future breeder cooperation. The big machines to come cry out for multinational development, but the United States has been establishing itself as an unreliable partner, a maverick ally, a skittish bedfellow. While political machinations among governments are routine-who could forget General de Gaulle?-disbelief in the contract-worthiness of the U.S. is growing.

Confidence, which wa.S eroded by the Carter Administration when it reversed two decades of breeder and reprocessing policy, has taken a new hammering in the matter of the Soviet gas pipeline. If Congress contrives to extinguish the CRBR, it is reasonable for our allies to conclude that you cannot trust us in the long haul; that America has no longevity.

For a host of reasons, more deliberation needs to go into the future of CRBR than for it to be throttled in a quick amendment to a money bill by a Congress which is scrambling to go home to deal with its own longevity problem.e

23792 MODERNIZATION OF THE NA

TIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

HON.CHARLESE.BENNETT OF FLORIDA


• Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Speaker, from Maj. Gen. J. Milnor Roberts, AUS <retired), executive director of the Reserve Officers Association, I have received the following resolution which I am pleased to insert in the RECORD at this point:

MODERNIZATION OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

Whereas there is more to national defense than having well-trained personnel equipped with superior weapon systeins; and

Whereas our industrial base is an integral part of our national security posture and a strong industrial base is an important deterrent to conflict; and

Whereas without a responsive industrial base, both our weapon systeins' capabilities and our flexibility to respond to national security interests and sustain a desired level of activity are severely impaired; and

Whereas the U.S. defense industry is hard-pressed to meet even the current, relatively modest, procurement goals of the military services; and

Whereas over the past decade thousands of subcontractors have deserted the defense business while major defense producers have failed to invest adequately in new technology; and

Whereas studies have shown that many probleins exist in the ability of our industries to reach swiftly to the need for increased defense production, thus highlighting a weakness in our combat sustainability: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Reserve Officers Association of the United States urges the Congress to pass legislation to encourage and assist in the modernization of the Nation's industrial base to strengthen our defense capabilities and ensure national security.e

Affi POLLUTION: IT HURTS MORE THAN PEOPLE

HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. OF CALIFORNIA


e Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the continuing concern about air pollution. There has been an enormous amount of time and effort spent in the debate on where the line is drawn between public need versus public desire when setting air quality standards.

It has often been suggested that the cost of reducing the concentration of air pollutants far exceeds the cost of that pollution to the community. While a finite dollars and cents figure could not be placed on the benefits of clean air, we do not need to rely on the esthetic aspects of clean air as justification for air quality controls.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS In the past year especially, several

reports have brought to our attention the monetary importance of clean air, and the economic damage induced by dirty air. Earlier this year, the Office of Technology Assessment <OTA), in a preliminary study of the effect of ozone pollution on a number of popular crops, reports startling figures of economic loss. In California alone, the damage to crops due to ozone and other airborne pollutants has been estimated at close to the $1 billion mark. Also to be considered in the costs of allowing this pollution to continue are the secondary costs to society produced due to the death of species in restricted areas, the reduction in the growth of forests and the damage done to our lakes and streams-and consequently aquatic life-due to acid rain.

Because of the documentation of the importance of these ecological factors, George M. Woodwell, in an article in the Christian Science Monitor, suggests that ecological damage should be considered in setting air quality standards. I would like to urge my colleagues to review and consider Mr. Woodwell's perspective outlined in the following article, and keep it in mind during the coming debates and action on the Clean Air Act. Perhaps this might help us all sort out the forest from the trees when defining our priorities for air quality regulation. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Sept.

9, 19821 NEEDED: A CLEAN AIR ACT STRONG ENOUGH TO

PROTECT PLANTs <By George M. Woodwem

How clean must we keep the air? The answer has been made complicated; it

need not be. It is determined by the requirements for life-by the physical, cheinical, and biotic conditions that are required to support living systeins. These include not only man himself but those other organisins upon which man depends. It is not determined by partial cost-benefit analyses, or by compromise among competing polluters.

Standards for air quality are derived from two sources: (1) effects on man and (2) effects on other living systeins. Criteria based on effects on man are less stringent than those based on effects on plants. This is because plants are more sensitive than people to low-level air pollution. This relationship is true in virtually every circUinstance except for ionizing radiation, where standards for protection of man are adequate to protect all other organisins. It is not surprising that those who may

profit from pollution call for relaxed standards on the grounds that hazards to human health are small. Such arguments are largely irrelevant. The most important and demanding criteria are those derived from populations of plants and the factors that affect them. If plants are protected, people will be free of both direct and indirect effects of air pollution.

The costs to industry may be high, but the costs of failure to protect people and plants are far higher. The most immediate issue is the strengthening of the Clean Air Act, now up for renewal in the US Congress, and the governmental apparatus required to carry it.

September 15, 1982 Consider the Northeastern United States.

There has been an increase over the last three decades in both the acidity of rain over North America and the area affected by the acidification. Effects are concentrated in the Northeast. All the acidity is not deposited in rain. A substantial fractionone-third to one-half-apparently arrives as sulfur dioxide on small particles. It is removed from the air on to surfaces, including leaves, where it is converted to acid.

Other changes include increases in exposure of plants to a variety of contalninants such as ozone and heavy metals. All are pro· duced as a result of the heavy use of fossil fuels in industrialized areas to the west and south. New England bears the brunt of the effects because the storm tracts commonly pass through it.

Effects of this atmospheric chemistry are sufficiently complicated and difficult to measure to provide ample basis for discussion among scientists and equivocation by others. The most clearly definced effect of acid rain is the acidification of lakes and stre&Ins in areas where the bedrock contains little limestone. Such areas have granitic rocks, their metamorphic equivalents or sedimentary rocks that have a low alkalinity and therefore little capacity for neutralizing acids.

Most of New England falls in this category. Its lakes, strea~ns, and ground water are turning acid. The effect is the loss of freshwater fisheries in lakes and strea~ns, the virtual sterilization of the water bodies. High acidity in wells mobilizes aluininum and other metals containing lead from minerals in the ground and in pipes. Aluininum is toxic to plants and certain animals, including fish. Lead and other heavy metals are toxic to people as well.

In certain instances, the additions of the nitrogen and sulfur associated with the acidification have caused increases in growth of trees. There is, however, substantially no basis for assuining that the acidleaching of forests or agricultural crops by the more acid rains will produce any effect in the longer term apart from imporverishment in essential nutrients, reduction in rates of growth, reductions in agricultural yields, and the loss of species and yields from forests. These effects are in part directly due to the acidification and in part due to increased incidence of diseases favored by any generalized stress.

The effects of ozone and other components of photochemical smog compound the problem. The national standard for ozone was set in 1971 as 0.08 p.p.m. The EPA re· ported that, in 1977, all but one of the 34 monitoring stations in New England reported violations of the standard. The standard was increased in 1979 to 0.12 p.p.m. The probability was 95 percent or more that ozone concentrations exceed the new standards in 1977 and 1980 over extensive areas in the United States, including the Eastern US from south of Washington to Portland, Maine. Many plant species are sensitive to photoxidant damage at concentrations below the current standard.

Evidence for the effects of air pollution on forests is accumulating rapidly. Damage has been shown in stands of white pine along the Blue Ridge Parkway in western Virginia. An average reduction in growth of 40 percent was measured for the period 1955-77. A siinilar reduction in the growth of pitch pine has been reported in New Jersey over approximately the same period. Other trees showing severe declines in vigor, even widespread mortality, over extensive areas

September 15, 1982 in New England include the beech, the red spruce, the white ash, and the white and yellow birches. Insect and disease organisms are known to increase under air pollution, and it would be surprising to discover that the problems observed in forests in the Northeast are not caused by the combination of air pollutants now present.

The pattern of change to be expected in the terrestrial vegetation under this series of stresses is well known. These transitions are under way: losses of forest productivity, shifts in species, losses of tree species, all accompanied by losses of freshwater fisheries and the acidification of ground water, with toxic consequences for man.

The evidence is that agricultural yields in the Ohio River Basin are being reduced significantly and that photosynthesis by forests over large areas is also being reduced. A measure of this is seen in the magnitude of reductions in solar energy captured by plants and made available by both agriculture and forests. These range upward to as much as 40 percent in certain circumstances. A general 20 percent reduction in the magnitude of these resources would not be surprising.

If the reduction applies to all of New England's forests, it would, in energy terms, amount to the output of between fifteen and thirty 1,000-megawatt power plants, or 135 to 270 billion kilowatts a year. Valued as electricity, it would be worth $7 billion to $14 billion. This is a substantial subsidy for the New England states to be paying from their forests and pastures and cultivated fields in the interests of industrialization elsewhere.

These statements may appear as mere assertions by an overly sensitive scientist. Each statement, however, can be documented in detail from the extensive literature now available on air pollution and on biotic effects. While none of these statements are beyond argument, the weight of evidence is that our regulatory system, as it stood before it was cut by the present administration, was inadequate to protect the public's vital interests. The proposals to weaken the Clean Air Act further promise still greater erosion of the capacity of the nation to support people.

How clean must we keep the air? Clean enough for green plants.e

HOPES FOR A NEW YEAR OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY

HON. STEPHEN J. SOLARZ OF NEW YORK


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Speaker, on Friday at sunset millions of Jews throughout the world will begin the celebration of the Jewish New Year, 5743. The sounding of the ram's horn on Rosh Hashanah marks the arrival of the high holy days. These 10 days which culminate in Yom Kippur are the most solemn time of the year in our religious calendar.

Rosh Hashanah is a time to remember and to reflect, not only on the events of the past year, but on the fundamental issues: the creation of the world, the meaning of one's existence, and the wonder of God's enduring covenant with Israel.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Following our ancient traditions,

millions of Jews will pause in prayer, fasting, and ritual observances to put their lives in perspective and to renew their commitments to the tenets of their faith, so that by Yom Kippur their names may be written into the Book of Life.

But these holy days are also a time of thanksgiving and hope. We take time to thank our God for the gift of life, for our religious and cultural heritage which enriches our existence, and to marvel at the survival of the Jewish community despite thousands of years of persecution, oppression, and the almost demoniacal campaigns of murderous fanatics who sought to destroy our people. But the people of Israel live, and during this holy season they pray longingly for the time when all Jews will be able to live in peace and security, and for the day when the survival and prosperity of the nation of Israel is assured.

May I take this opportunity to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all my colleagues and friends, a very special "Shannah Tova" and a new year of peace and prosperity for you and our great Nation.e

SOVIETS LINKED TO ASSASSINA

TION ATTEMPT OF POPE

HON. DON RITIER OF PENNSYLVANIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. RITTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit two newspaper articles for the benefit of my colleagues on the new evidence beginning to surface linking the Soviet KGB to the assassination attempt of the Pope last year. These articles summarize an NBC special to be aired at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 1982. I urge my colleagues in the Congress to try and watch that program.

I recently called for hearings to be held in the Helsinki Commission focusing on this issue and would strongly encourage my colleagues to attend this hearing at 9:30a.m. on Thursday, September 23, in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building. [From the New York Times, Sept. 15, 19821

NBC NEWS LINKs SOVYET TO ATTEKPT ON POPE'S LIFE

NBC News reported yesterday that it had found evidence suggesting that Pope John Paul II was the target of an assassination attempt with the knowledge and perhaps the assistance of Soviet and Bulgarian intelligence agencies.

NBC News said the Pope was targeted because of his support of the solidarity movement in Poland. The report also said that the Pope had sent a handwritten letter to Leonid I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, in 1980 in which the Polish-born Pope said he would abdicate the papacy and lead the resistance if Soviet troops invaded Poland.

23793 The letter, reportedly delivered by a Vati

can envoy, instigated a secret shuttle mission between Moscow, Rome and Warsaw that led eventually to a temporary easing of the Soviet attitude toward Solidarity, NBC News said. It said its report came after a nine-month

investigation by the correspondents Marvin Kalb and Bill McLaughlin. The network released details of the investigation today in advance of the airing of a documentary, "The Man Who Shot the Pope-A Study in Terrorism." It is scheduled to be broadcast Sept. 21.

In an article in the September issue of Reader's Digest, Claire Sterling, author of "The Terror Network," said the shooting of the Pope in St. Peter's Square in May 1981 was in retaliation for the Pope's support of Solidarity. Mrs. Sterling also maintained that the shooting had the backing of the Soviet Union, which she said acted through the Bulgarian int elligence organization.

[At the time of Mrs. Sterling's article, the Moscow radio broadcast a denunciation of the allegations, saying, "The absurdity and unfoundedness of this claim are obvious."]

NBC News traced what it called an unbroken line from Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman convicted for the shooting of the Pope to organized crime elements in Turkey, the Bulgarian secret service and the K .G.B., the Soviet intelligence agency.

"A Soviet connection is strongly suggested, but it cannot be proved," Mr. Kalb said.

The correspondent said "it seems safe to conclude" that Mr. Agca had "been drawn into the clandestine network of the Bulgarian secret police and, by extension, the Soviet K.G.B."

ESCAPED FROM PRISON IN TURKEY

NBC news said bank records showed that Mr. Agca deposited $10,000 two months before the assassination of a Turkish newspaper editor, Abdi Ipecki. Mr. Agca was convicted of the murder but later escaped from a maximum security prison in Turkey. In addition, Mr. Agca had large sums of money deposited for him in Turkish banks while he was a student at Istanbul University.

NBC News said that Mr. Agca appeared to have been backed financially at every step of the way by organized crime in Turkey and that the Bulgarian secret service has strong ties to the Turkish syndicate.

NBC News quoted Vlad1mlr Sakharov, a former K.G.B. agent who defected, as saying that information held by the Bulgarians would also be known by the K.G.B.

[Special for USA Today, Sept. 15, 19821 SOVYETS PLoTTED To KILL THE POPE, NBC

REPORTS The Soviet Union "responded with bul

lets" to Pope John Paul II's handwritten plea for Soviet troops to stay out of Poland, NBC News Correspondent Marvin Kalb said Tuesday.

Kalb offered that explanation for the attempted assassination of the pope by a Turkish terrorist in St. Peter's Square on May 13, 1981, after a press screening of an NBC "white paper" suggesting Soviet complicity.

The documentary-The Man Who Shot the Pope: A Study in Terrorism-reveals for the first time that the pope sent a special envoy to the Kremlln the previous August bearing what Kalb describes as "an extraordinary handwritten letter, in Russian," for Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev.

"It said though the pope was the head of a universal church, he was still a Pole, and

23794 deeply affected by events in Poland," says Kalb in the documentary, airing at 10 p.m. EDT next Tuesday.

"If the Russians moved against Poland," Kalb said, quoting directly from the letter, " the pope said he would 'lay down the crown of St. Peter' and return to his homeland to stand shoulder to shoulder with his people."

Kalb believes t he letter, supplied by a source whom Kalb was "pledged not to identify," convinced the Soviet Union to keep troops out of Poland and made it possible for Solidarity leader Lech Walesa to sign the Gdansk Agreement establishing the first independent trade union in a Communist country.

The pope paid the price, according to the documentary, when outraged Soviet officials then hatched the plot kill him.

The plot quickened after Pope John Paul II met with Walesa in January of last year at the Vatican, says NBC, after the pope "approved of plans to send millions of dollars to Solidarity, and to stiffen the spine of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe."

Kalb attributes his material in part to "western intelligence sources," otherwise unidentified, but defends his judgment at the outset. "NBC News has accumulated a great deal of evidence, some of it, to be sure, circumstantial," says Kalb. "A Soviet connection is strongly suggested, but it cannot be proved."

The documentary reports that Mehmet Ail Agca, the terrorist convicted of attempting to kill the pope, was linked to a "TUrkish Mafia" closely connected with the Bulgarian secret police and the Soviet KGB.

"I certainly believe that any 007 at the service of any government would have an easy job trying to harm the pope," Vatican Cardinal Silvio Oddi told Kalb. "If-and what-secret service did the job, I don't know. We suspect. We think. We are trying to prove."

Kalb reports, moreover, that the "people who know the pope best" say he believes he is still threatened by the Soviets.

With the help of Agca's hired hand, Solidarity has been crushed, martial law imposed, and, Kalb concludes: "The Russians have checkmated the pope."e

AN INCENTIVE EMBODIED IN OUR CONSTITUTION

HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER OF ILLINOIS



e Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions our Founding Fathers saw fit to embody and protect in the Constitution, specifically in article I, section 8, provides that Congress shall have the power:

To promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Under the patent system that was instituted in 1790, an inventor was granted a limited, 17-year monopoly on his invention in exchange for its disclosure to the public. The theory behind the patent system is that some incentive is needed to spur on innovative research and the investment of

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS private risk capital. A patent provides such an incentive by giving the developer and marketer a limited exclusive market position in which they can hope to recoup their development costs and possibly make a profit.

Moreover, the principle behind the inclusion of the patent system in the Constitution has been historically proven. Our country in 1790 was exclusively agricultural, wholly dependent on Europe for its machines and manufactures. Many feel that the principle of patent protection has been instrumental in our Nation's evolution from where it stood in 1790 into the most successful industrialized Nation in the world.

Over the last 20 years, however, certain fields of endeavor have been less equal than others in terms of the duration of patent life. In 1962, the hypnotic drug thalidomide, which was available in the United States only as an experimental drug but received widespread use during the late 1950's in many countries, was pointed to as producing congenital defects in offspring. The furor created by this tragic finding led not only to increased caution among physicians about the use of drugs in pregnant women but also stimulated the congressional enactment of far more stringent drug testing requirements than had previously been the case. One of the results of the testing regulations, however, has been that a new drug, which prior to 1962 required only 1 year between patenting and getting FDA approval, now requires over 7, resulting in less than a 10-year patent life.

The question that is raised by this result is not only one of fairness and equity to all fields of endeavor, but of the need so well understood by our Founding Fathers-to promote progress and innovation in this country. Producing a drug today now entails 10 years, $70 million and a failure rate of 90 percent. Although the safety of the public should clearly receive the highest consideration, given the present high cost of producing a drug, and the tremendous contributions to medical progress such a discovery can make, it seems pointless and even counterproductive not to give this field of endeavor the same protection as is guaranteed other products.

For these reasons I intend to support H.R. 6444, the Patent Term Restoration Act, which would extend the patent term by the period of time required by the Food and Drug Administration to review and approve a new drug or medical device up to 7 years.

At a time when it seems realistic to expect that the Federal Government's ability to fund biomedical research ap-propriations may not be able to increase as quickly as in previous years, it seems unwise not to do our utmost to provide the private sector with the incentive embodied in our Constitu-

September 15, 1982 tion to continue the development of new products and treatments. To do otherwise will only jeopardize our country's ability to retain and use the ingenuity that is ours ultimately to provide for the public good.e

EXPLANATION OF ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AS PROVIDED IN H.R. 4961, THE TAX EQuiTY AND FISCAL RESPONSmiLITY ACT

HON. HAROLD E. FORD OF TENNESSEE



• Mr. FORD of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, in order to assist my colleagues in answering constituent inquiries about the Federal supplemental benefits program contained in H.R. 4961, I am putting in the REcoRD an explanation of this new program. Present law is described followed by an explanation of the Federal supplemental benefits program provided by H.R. 4961 and a chart showing the estimated maximum number of weeks of benefits that will be payable to unemployed workers in each of the States for the first quarter of fiscal year 1983. I realize that this explanation may not answer all of the questions that may come up about this program. I encourage my colleagues to contact the staff of the Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation at extension 5-1025 for further information.

PRESENT EXTENDED BENEFITS PROGRAM

Under present law, up to 26 weeks of State financed unemployment compensation benefits are payable to unemployed individuals who meet the qualifying requirements of State law. In 9 States, claimants may receive more than 26 weeks of State benefits.

Under the permanent Federal-State extended benefits program <EB), additional weeks of unemployment compensation are payable to individuals who exhaust their State benefits during periods of 'high unemployment. Extended benefits are financed 50 percent from State trust funds and 50 percent from Federal unemployment trust funds.

Until September 25, 1982, extended benefits are payable in a State when, over the most recent 13-week period, the State insured unemployment rate <IUR> averages at least 4 percent and, in addition, is at least 20 percent higher than the average State IUR during the comparable period in the previous 2 years. When the 20-percent factor is not met, a State, at its option, may provide extended benefits when the State IUR reaches 5 percent.

September 15, 1982 Forty States have adopted this optional State trigger.

The IUR is calculated by dividing the number of workers receiving State benefits by the number of workers covered by the State unemployment compensation program. Prior to last year's Reconciliation Act, workers receiving both State benefits and those receiving extended benefits were included in the calculation. Last year's act dropped extended benefits claimants from the calculation. In addition to this change in calculating the IUR, the Reconciliation Act increases the EB trigger rate effective September 25, 1982. On that date, both EB triggers will be increased 1 percent. In other words, after this date, extended benefits will be payable in a State when the State IUR equals 5 percent or greater-rather than 4 percentand is 20 percent higher than it was during the comparable period in the previous 2 years; or, at its option, when the IUR equals 6 percentrather than 5 percent-regardless of the IUR in previous years. The change in the calculation of the IUR has had the effect of lowering State IUR rates and consequently made it more difficult for States to remain on the EB program. The increase in the trigger rates effective September 25, 1982, will make it even more difficult for States to qualify for the EB program. FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PROVIDED IN

H.R. 4961

H.R. 4961 provides up to an additional 10 weeks of benefits to unemployed workers in any State in which extended benefits have been payable since June 1, 1982. These benefits will be available even if the State has triggered off the EB program since that date. It should be pointed out that these Federal supplemental benefitsand administrative costs-will be paid entirely out of general revenues. A simple extension of EB, which is financed 50 percent from State trust funds, would have placed a severe financial burden on a number of State trust funds that have outstanding loans to the Federal Government for past EB payments.

In States that have not at anytime since June 1, 1982, met the EB triggers, but have an IUR of 3.5 percent or greater, jobless workers will receive up to an additional 8 weeks of benefits. Those in States with an IUR of Jess than 3.5 percent will receive up to an additional 6 weeks of benefits. These provisions of H.R. 4961 recognize that the current unemployment problem is national in scope, and unemployed workers in all States need additional help.

The Federal supplemental benefits will be payable for weeks of unemployment between September 12, 1982, and March 31, 1983. In order to be eligible for these benefits, an individual must have exhausted his regular State bene-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS fits and any extended benefits to which he is entitled, and first, his benefit year must end on or after June 1, 1982, or second, he must have been eligible for extended benefits for any week beginning on or after June 1, 1982.

When an individual is determined to be eligible for State unemployment compensation benefits, he generally has 52 weeks, known as the benefit year, in which to collect the benefits to which he is entitled. In most States the benefit year begins with the first week for which a valid claim for benefits was filed. Therefore. in most States. if an individual first filed a valid claim for unemployment compensation benefits for a week beginning on or after June 1, 1981, he should be eligible for Federal supplemental benefits. This is because his benefit year will end on or after June 1, 1982. If an individual's benefit year ends

before June 1, 1982, but he was eligible to receive extended benefits for any week beginning on or after June 1, 1982, he will be eligible to receive Federal supplemental benefits.

EFFECT OF FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PROVISION OF H.R. 4961 ON THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS PAYABLE TO UNEMPLOYED WORKERS 1

Present law H.R. 4961

Projected State Regular Projected Ft!deral

State extended supple- Total benefrts benefits 2 mental

benefits

Alabama .................................... 26 0 10 36 Alaska ....................................... 26 13 10 49 Arizona ...................................... 26 3 13 10 349 Arkansas ................................... 26 0 10 36 California ................................... 26 0 10 36 Colorado .................................... 26 0 6 32 Connecticut ............................... 26 0 6 32 Delaware ................................... 26 0 10 36 District of Columbia .................. 34 0 6 40 Florida ....................................... 26 0 6 32

~fit:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :: 26 0 6 32 26 0 8 34

Idaho ......................................... 26 13 10 49 Illinois ....................................... 26 0 10 36 Indiana ...................................... 26 0 10 36 Iowa .......................................... 26 0 10 36 Kansas ...................................... 26 • 13 10 s 49

~f:L:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 26 0 10 36 28 0 10 38

Maine ........................................ 26 0 10 36

:~usett"S·:::::::::::::::::::: :: :::: 26 0 10 36 30 0 10 40

Michigan ................................... 26 13 10 349 Minnesota ................................. 26 0 10 36

::=r..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 26 13 10 49 26 0 10 36

Montana .................................... 26 0 10 36 Nebrasb ................................... 26 0 6 32 Nevada ...................................... 26 0 10 36 New Hampshire ........................ 26 0 6 32 New Jersey ............................... 26 0 10 36 New Mexico .............................. 26 •13 10 3 49 New York .................................. 26 0 8 34 North Carolina ........................... 26 0 10 36 North Dakota ............................ 26 0 6 32 Ohio .......................................... 26 13 10 49 Oklahoma .................................. 26 0 6 32

~"~·:: : ::::::::::::::: :::: ::::::: 26 13 10 49 30 13 10 '49

Puerto Rico ............................... 20 13 10 43 Rhode Island ............................. 26 13 10 49 South Carolina .......................... 26 13 10 49 SIJU!h Dakota ............................ 26 0 6 32 Tennessee ................................. 26 0 10 36 Texas ........................................ 26 0 6 32 Utah .......................................... 36 0 10 46 Vermont .................................... 26 0 10 36 Virginia ..................................... 26 0 6 32

23795 EFFECT OF FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PROVISION

OF H.R. 4961 ON THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS PAYABLE TO UNEMPLOYED WORKERS 1-Continued

Present law H.R. 4961

Projected State Regular Projected Federal

Slate extended supple- Total benefrts benefrts • mental

benefits

Virgir. Islands ............................ 26 0 10 36 Washington ............................... 30 13 10 "49 West Virginia ............................ 28 13 10 • 49 WISCOI!Sin .................................. 34 0 10 44 Wyoming ................................... 26 0 6 32

' Weeks of benefits are based upon the Slate's projected insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the lsi quarter of fiSCal year 1983.

2 Extended benefits (EB) payable under EB triggers etfectM! Sept 25, 1982.

s State will trigger ott of Ell before end of quarter. • No individual worker can receive more than 39 weeks of regular Slate and

extended benefrts•

EXTRADITION ACT OF 1982

HON. GERRY E. STUDDS OF MASSACHUSE'r.l'S



• Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, the House is expected soon to consider H.R. 6046, the proposed Extradition Act of 1982. Although I have not personally formed a final judgment about how I may vote on this measure, I have become aware of a number of questions which have been raised about specific aspects of the bill. Many of these questions are discussed in the attached essay which was written by Mr. Christopher Pyle, and which appeared in the New York Times on August 11.

I am particularly concerned about the provisions of the extradition bill which would authorize the arrest and detention of an individual solely on the basis of an accusation, unsupported by evidence, put forward by a foreign government; by the narrow definition of political offense which is adopted by the bill; and by the extent to which responsibilities of a judicial nature are placed in the hands of political officials from the Department of State.

As I say, I have a good deal of respect for the Committee on the Judiciary and for the authors of H.R. 6046. I am hopeful that when the House does debate this legislation, careful consideration w1ll be given to the controversial provisions of the bill, and a full and thoughtful debate will be held on a series of amendments which I understand will be offered.

The following essay by Christopher Pyle discusses the extradition legislation in a manner which I believe should be of interest to my colleagues.

The article follows:

23796 [From the New York Times, Aug. 11, 19821

RUINING EXTRADITION <By Christopher H. Pyle>

SouTH HAnLEY, MAss.-For more than two centuries, the United States has provided a refuge to which opponents of authoritarian regimes could flee without fear that they would be returned to stand trial for political offenses. That policy may be about to end.

Under either of the extradition bills now cleared for debate in Congress, persons charged with political crimes would be stripped of their legal defense and United States courts would be turned into the long arms of foreign persecution.

The purpose of the bills-to facilitate the return of terrorists-is manifestly worthwhile. However, both bills are so badly written that they would endanger the very persons that American law governing extradition has always shielded: critics of foreign regimes, former freedom fighters against authoritarian rule, former officials of regimes that the United States once supported.

For example, both bills provide for the arrest of an accused person without any proof that he is guilty of a crime. A mere allegation by a foreign dictatorship, coupled with a promise to produce evidence sometime in the future, would be sufficient to cause the United States Government to jail the accused for months. No United States prosecutor has this power of arbitary detention, but under these bills, Albania, Rumania, South Africa, El Salvador and about 90 more countries with which we have extradition agreements would have it, and could use it to bring about the imprisonment of their critics within the United States.

Under current law, no American court will allow a person to be extradited if it can be shown that he or she is really being sought for "an offense of a political character." Each bill would, in its own way, destroy this defense.

The Senate bill, which the Adininistration favors, would do so by stripping the courts of jurisdiction over the political crimes defense. Instead, the accused would have to raise his claim with the State Department, which could then decide whether protecting him from persecution is worth the risk of alienating the foreign government involved.

The State Department's motive for supporting this bill is clear. It wants to be able to swap alleged criminals with foreign countries the same way that children trade baseball cards: "We'll give you one terrorist if you give us three embezzlers."

The House bill seems more protective of political refugees than the Senate bill because it would keep in the courts the power to decide the political crimes defense. However, the appearance is deceptive, because the House bill would forbid the courts to regard as political, and hence not extraditable, any offense involving bodily violence or a conspiracy to commit bodily violence. There is a tiny exception for crimes committed under "extraordinary circumstances," but the bill does not say what they might be. All that is clear is the political message: Protecting foreign revolutionaries from return to authoritarian regimes should be a rare, not common occurrence.

As if to emphasize a preference for authoritarian regimes, both bills would forbid the courts to question whether a request for extradition was really a subterfuge for persecution. Nor would the courts be allowed to hear evidence that the charges against the accused resulted from torture or to deny extradition on the ground that the requesting

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS regime is notorious for brutal interrogations, unjust trials or cruel punishment. Judgments of this sort would be left to the State Department, which currently pretends that El Salvador protects human rights.

The Administration claims that the courts should be denied the power to look into foreign injustice in order to assure the neutrality of the United States in foreign political conflicts. However, there can be no doubt where the Justice Department's sympathies would lie; both bills would require its lawyers to represent all foreign governments in their extradition requests. The United States would be neutral-on the side of whoever happens to be in power.

In anticipation of this legislation and a treaty to implement it, the Marcos dictatorship is requesting the extradition of more than a dozen of its opponents now living in the United States. One of those charged with plotting in the United States to support bombings in the Philippines is Benigno Aquino Jr., an associate at Harvard University's School of International Affairs who ran against President Ferdinand E. Marcos in the last free election. The only "evidence" against Mr. Aquino comes from the confession of an alleged coconspirator who later recanted, claiming he had been tortured. However, if either bill now before Congress passes, that evidence will be sufficient to send this democratic politician back into the hands of the dictator he opposed.e

TRIBUTE TO JOHN NEAFSEY, NEW JERSEY LEGION COMMANDER

HON. JAMES J. FLORIO OF NEW JERSEY


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding American, John M. Neafsey, of Gloucester City N.J.

Mr. N eafsey is being installed as commander for the American Legion in New Jersey. This honor follows a long history of active participation in the Legion as well as service to his Nation and community.

John has been commander of both the Fairview No. 71 Post and the Camden County organization of the Legion. He is currently serving the Legion on the national level as vice chairman of the Americanism council and on the legislative council.

John is also a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Free and Accepted Masons, the Knights of Columbus, and other groups.

John's military service began in September 1940, when he joined the 157th Field Artillery. He transferred to the U.S. Army Air Force in 1943, serving in the 2d, 3d, and 15th Air Forces. He was discharged in September 1945.

Married to the former Evelyn Davis, he is father to three daughters, Evelyn, Doris, and Annamae, and a son, Charles. Mr. and Mrs. Neafsey have six grandchildren. John Neafsey

September 15, 1982 has been employeed by the U.S. Postal Service for the last 18 years.

I know that John Neafsey will serve with distinction and honor as commander of the American Legion's New Jersey Department. My best wishes go out to him, his family, and his fellow Legionnaires.•

EARLY WARNING

HON. LES ASPIN OF WISCONSIN



• Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1983 may be considered shortly by the House. I am, therefore, inserting into the RECORD a cost analysis of that bill prepared by the staff of the Budget Committee. The cost analysis uses data provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

This bill, like the three other appropriations bills that I have discussed previously, is within its discretionary budget authority targets provided through the budget process and thus not subject to delayed enrollment. In addition, the mandatory budget authority provided in the bill is within the 302(b) targets agreed to by the Appropriations Committee pursuant to the act and the first budget resolution. The budget resolution does not assume the need for future supplementals that would exceed these targets.

The subcommittee does exceed its outlay targets, however. It is not possible to know exactly why this occurred since outlays are an estimate, but it is likely that the Appropriations Committee action provides a different program mix than those assumed in their 302 subdivision. To the extent that the spending mix has been altered, it is likely that faster first-year spending means lower outlays in 1984 and 1985-I believe this phenomenon has no long-run significance. EARLY WARNING SUMMARY: H.R. 97-7019, DE

PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, FISCAL YEAR 1983 Floor action: Tentative, Thursday, Sep

tember 16, 1982 Scorekeeping: The functional totals in

cluded in the First Budget Resolution conference report are allocated to the appropriate House committees in accordance with Section 302<a> of the ·Budget Act. Each committee then divides the 302<a> allocation among its subcommittees or programs and reports its subdivisions back to the House in a 302 report. It is this 302 report that the House Budget Committee uses to "score" a spending bill.

Scoring of this bill: Using the 302(b) report, the Budget Committee makes several comparisons to determine whether or not a spending bill is within the targets of the First Budget Resolution. In scoring a spend-

September 15, 1982 ing bill, the Budget Committee pays particular attention to programs over which a committee has funding discretion. For example, the Appropriations Committee is bound by existing law and generally cannot effectively reduce amounts required for the funding of mandatory programs. Many of these comparisons are for informational purposes only; the only procedural sanction is deferred enrollment which causes a conference report to be held at the desk if the discretionary budget authority exceeds its target.

< 1 > Discretionary Programs in Bill: The bill equals the subcommittee's total for budget authority and thus would not be subject to the deferred enrollment provisions of the Budget Resolution. The bill is over the allocation for outlays by $244 million.

(2) Mandatory Programs in Bill: The bill is under the subcommittee's total for budget authority by $43 million and over the outlay total by $476 million.

<3> Overall Bill Total: The bill is under the subcommittee's budget authority total by $43 million and over the outlay total by $720 million.

(4) Credit Targets: The bill is under the subcommittee's total.

<5> Supplemental Amounts Which May Be Required: Future anticipated funding requirements also in the Subcommittee's jurisdiction if added to this bill would not breach the Subcommittee's 302(b) budget authority allocation but would further breach the Subcommittee's 302(b) outlay allocation.

For additional details see the attached early warning report.

EARLY WARNING ADDITIONAL DETAIL HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE

Bill: H.R. 7019 Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriation, fiscal year 1983.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Committee: Appropriations. Subcommittee: Transportation. Floor Manager: Mr. Lehman <Florida). Ranking Minority Member: Mr. Coughlin

<Pennsylvania>. Scheduled: Tentative, Thursday, Septem

ber 16, 1982. I. Description of bill: This bill provides ap

propriations for the Department of Transportation and several other smaller independent agencies.

II. Comparison with target for discretionary appropriatons action: Pursuant to the Budget Act and HBC scorekeeping, the subcommittee has two targets: one for discretionary programs and one for mandatory programs. Since the Appropriations Committee is bound by existing entitlement law, it generally cannot effectively change the amounts required for the funding of mandatory programs. The Subcommittee's target for discretionary programs is therefore the main focus for this Early Warning report. That target is specified in the report of the Appropriations Committee made pursuant to Sec. 302(b) of the Budget Act, in which the Appropriations Committee subdivided to subcommittees the amounts allocated to it in the First Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 1983.

Further, if the conference report on this appropriation bill, combined with any other fiscal year 1983 appropriations that the subcommittee may have enacted this session, were to cause the target for discretionary budget authority to be breached, then the bill would be subject to the "deferred enroll-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ment" provision of Section 4 of the Fiscal Year 1983 First Budget Resolution <or held at the desk and not sent to the President for signature>.

The summary table below shows that the subcommittee is equal to its discretionary targets for budget authority and over in outlays. The numbers in the summary table could change as a result of floor amendments, Senate action, conference action on this bill, or possible future supplemental appropriations. Possible future supplementals are discussed in Section IV below.

III. Summary table:

[In millions of dollars]

The amounts shown below are only for discretionary

Budget authority Outlays

1983 ~nding by this subcommittee: I. DISCretionary amounts in bill.......................... 10,815 8,244 2. Prior action ....................................... ... .................................................... .

3. Total action to date ............................ 10,815 8,244 4. 302(b) target ................................................ 10,815 8,000

~: Amounts~\;ri;J{~"rnJt -~~··cooSideieii ::::::::::::~::::::: : :::::: .......... ~.~~ 7. Over(+ )/ Under(- ) ............................................. . +244

The amounts shown below are on~ for mandatory

prOf~a:Ja~~a~!~in\1\~.~--~-~-~~~~:.. 384 380 9. Prior action ........................................................................... 11.052

10. Total.................................................. 384 11.432 11. 302(b) target .............................................. ___ 42_7 __ 10'-,95_6

12. Overf+l/ Under( - ) ...................... -43 +476 13. Supplementa amounts needed ...................... ___ 3_9 ___ 3_1

14. Over( + )/Under(- ) ...................... -4 +507 The amounts shown below are for the bill total and

include both discretionary and mandatory amounts:

IS. Total amounts in bill..................................... 11,199 8,624 16. Prior action ......................................................................... 11,052

17. Total.................................................. 11,199 19,676 18. 302(b) total target... ................................... __ 1_1._24_2 __ 1_8_,95_6

19. Overf + l/Under(- )...................... -43 +720 20. Supplementa amounts .................................. ___ 3_9 ___ 3_1

21. Over(+ )/Under(-) ...................... -4 +751

Note.-Oetail may not add due to rounding.

IV. Explanation of over/under: Since the assumptions behind a committee's 302 subdivision are not required to be provided to the House, the House Budget Committee is unable to give a definitive answer to the question of where a particular bill is over or under a committee's 302 subdivision. The Budget Committee can only compare the items in the bill to the assumptions contained in the budget resolution. It is important to note that the line item assumptions in the budget resolution are not binding on a committee.

In state transfer grants-highways is $212 million in budget authority and $35 million in outlays above the assumptions in the budget resolution.

Urban mass transportation funding is $148 million in budget authority over the resolution assumptions and $62 million in outlays under the resolution assumptions.

Funding for FAA operations is over the budget resolution assumptions by $152 million in budget authority and $132 million in outlays.

Funding for FAA facilities and equipment is over the budget resolution assumptions by $113 million in budget authority and $12 million in outlays.

Funding for Coast Guard operating expenses is over the budget resolution assumptions by $164 million in budget authority and $128 million in outlays.

Funding for Coast Guard acquisition, construction and improvements is under the

23797 budget resolution assumptions by $407 million in budget authority and $52 million in outlays.

V. Credit: The First Budget Resolution contains targets for credit program amounts. As with budget authority and outlays, the Appropriations Committee is allocated amounts for credit program levels, and subdivides those amounts among subcommittees. For comparative purposes, the table below shows the bill, plus items not yet acted on, and the credit subdivisions.

I. Credit program limits in the bill. ...... . 2. Umits assumed in the bud2et

resolution not acted upon in !he

Direct loan obligations

Primary guarantee commitments

Secondary guarantee commit· ments

337 ····················

bill and other amounts not subject to limit............................................... 466 - 280 ................... . ------------------

3. Possible total lor subcommittee......... 468 57 ................... . 4. Credit sulxfJVisions ..............•.............. 550 125 3

--------------~--5. !Ner(+)/Under(-) ............. -........ -82 -68 -3

The great majority of direct loan activity under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is not subject to limit. This occurs because < 1 > guaranteed loans purchased by the FFB are not subject to limit, and <2> direct loans incurred because of default on guaranteed loans are not subject to limit. In the aggregate the direct loan, primary loan guarantee and secondary loan guarantee commitment activity under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, including activity not subject to annual appropriations limits, is less than the credit subdivisions allocated to this subcommittee. The largest credit program under the subcommittee's jurisdiction is rail rehabilitation and improvement loan guarantees. The bill limits the program to $275 million, which is $5 million more than the level assumed in the budget resolution.

VIII. Definitions of terms in summary table, section III:

Line 1. Discretionary amounts in bill: discretionary fiscal year 1983 appropriations in H.R. 7019.

Line 2. Prior action: the fiscal year 1983 budget authority and outlays for this committee that were appropriated in prior bills.

Line 3. Total action to date: line 1 plus line 2.

Line 4. 302(b) target for discretionary appropriations set by the Appropriations Committee pursuant to the Budget Act.

Line 5. Over<+>/Under<->: line 3 minus line 4.

Line 6. Amounts assumed but not yet considered: these are amounts assumed in fiscal year 1983 budget resolution for which funding has been deferred by the Appropriations Committee, probably until next spring's supplemental appropriations bill.

Line 7. Over <+>/Under<->: line 5 plus line 6.

Line 8. Mandatory amount in bill: funding for mandatory programs <entitlements>.

Line 9. Prior action: outlays from budget authority enacted for years prior to fiscal year 1983, plus permanents and advance appropriations assigned to the Appropriations Committee.

Line 10. Total: line 8 plus line 9. Line 11. 302<bi target: the target for man

datory amounts set by the Appropriations Committee. The target set by the Appropriations Committee includes the effect of assumed authorizing legislation that would change the level of mandatory programs.

23798 Line 12. Over <+)/Under< - >: line 10 minus

line 11. Line 13. Supplemental amount needed:

amounts for any new entitlement legislation assumed in the budget resolution and to fund mandatory items in the bill at the level estimated in the budget resolution.

Line 14. Over <+>/Under< - >: line 12 plus line 13.

Lines 15. through 21. These lines equal the sum of lines 1 and 8, lines 2 and 9, etc., respectively .e

PER DIEM ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE OF NEW YORK


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that Members of the U.S. Congress who have their principal home in the district they represent should be given a per diem allowance for legislative days in Washington, D.C.

I recently requested information from the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding the award of per diem living expenses to State legislators. I would like to share this information with my colleagues.

The following States give the following per diem living expenses during the State legislative session: Alabama, $65 up to 105 calender days, unvouchered; Alaska, $60 unvouchered; Arizona, $40; $20 for Maricopa legislators, unvouchered; Arkansas, $44, vouchered; California, $46, unvouchered; Colorado, $40; $20, for Denver Metropolitan legislators, unvouchered; Connecticut, receive no per diem, $2,000 annually, unvouchered; Florida, $50, unvouchered; Georgia, $44, unvouchered; Hawaii, $20 for legislators outside of Oahu, unvouchered; $2,500 annual allowance for incidental expenses; Idaho, $44; $25 if legislator lives at home in capital city, unvouchered; Illinois, $36, unvouchered; Indiana, $50, unvouchered; Iowa, $30; $15 for Polk County legislators, unvouchered; .Kansas, $50 unvouchered; Kentucky, $75, unvouchered; Maine, $35 for 7 -day week meals and housing or $17 per day meals; mileage up to $20 per day, vouchered; Maryland, $50 maximum, vouchered; Michigan, total of $5,200 in 1981, unvouchered; Minnesota, $27, $17 for metropolitan legislators, unvouchered; Mississippi, $44 for actual daily attendance, none for Jackson legislators, unvouchered; Missouri, $35 for actual daily attendance, unvouchered; Montana, $40 for 7 -day week, unvouchered; Nevada, $44, unvouchered; New Mexico, $40, vouchered; New York, up to $55, vouchered; North Carolina, $55, unvouchered: North Dakota, $70, unvouchered; Oklahoma, $35; only mileage during session if legislator lives at home, vouchered; Oregon, $44, unvou-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS chered; Pennsylvania, $58, vouchered; South Carolina, $50 subsistence, vouchered; South Dakota, $50 for 5-day week, unvouchered; Tennessee, $66.47, unvouchered; Texas, $30, unvouchered; Utah, $15 expense allowance, unvouchered; Vermont, $45 if housed in capital; $17.50 if legislator lives at home, unvouchered; Virginia, up to $50 but no more than $44 as allowed by IRS, unvouchered; Washington, $44, unvouchered; West Virginia, $30 lodging, or up to $30 travel expenses if commuting; Charleston legislators $20 for meals but no other expense, unvouchered; Wisconsin, $30, $15 if legislator lives inside Madison, unvouchered;Wyoming, $44,unvouchered.e

EXTRADITION REFORM ACT OF 1982

HON. WALTER E. FAUNTROY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Speaker, it is with strong concern that I rise in opposition to H.R. 6046, the Extradition Reform Act of 1982. While I am strongly aupportive of efforts to modernize and reform our extradition procedure so that they protect the civil liberties of those who face extradition because they are charged with serious crimes, I must oppose the bill because it has provisions which would prohibit the courts from reviewing extradition demands by foreign governments.

Court review is necessary to insure that the demand for extradition on the part of a foreign government is not merely an effort to supress political dissent. Additionally, the bill would permit individuals, both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, to be detained without bail on the basis of only anallegation by a foreign government that an extraditable crime has been committed. Our history as a nation has been enhanced through the refuge we have provided on many occasions to victims of regimes which have a pattern and practice of human rights violations. H.R. 6046, while not deliberately seeking to overturn this proud tradition, is unfortunately drafted so broadly that it could endanger the very persons that our tradition of refuge has always shielded: Opponents of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, be they U.S. citizens or foreign nationals.

My understanding is that a number of my colleagues will be offering amendments to H.R. 6046 which would alter the most objectionable provisions of this legislation.

I would urge my colleagues to give the most careful consideration to H.R. 6046 to alter the following provisions:

Require the court to hold an individual for at least 10 days based upon a

September 15, 1982 mere request of a foreign government with no supporting evidence, unless the person can affirmatively demonstrate that he or she should be released;

Define the longstanding political crime exception to extradition so narrowly as to exclude in almost all circumstances crimes which in any was include violent conduct; and

Prohibit a court from inquiring into allegations that a State is seeking extradition of a person for the purpose of prosecuting such person because of his or her political opinions, race, religion, or nationality.

Consider just a few situations in which the courts would have no choice but to act:

A foreign government's mere, unsubstantiated allegation that an American citizen had, on a visit to that country, conspired to commit a violent act, coupled with a promise to produce evidence at a later date, would compel that the person be held without bail for for at least 10 and perhaps for more than 60 days.

A leading critic of a foreign dictatorship could be extradited based on allegations that he engaged in violent acts, without having the opportunity to demonstrate that the charges were a mere subterfuge to punish him for his political view or that he would be subjected to arbitrary detention or torture if extradited.

An individual who used violence to escape from a foreign prison where he was being tortured or who used force directed at military units as part of an uprising against a repressive regime would be unable to claim the political exception to extradition which has traditionally been the hallmark of American extradition law.

It is not sufficient that the executive branch could decline to file a complaint or to extradite in a particular case of manifest injustice. Every administration is under enormous pressure from its allies to extradite political opponents of the regime and to ignore evidence of torture or lack of due process. The recent decision by the Reagan administration to certify that the Government of El Salvador is not violating international human rights standards is but one recent manifestation of this continuing phenomenon.

In addition, I submit for your additional information a recent letter published in the New York Times by Christopher Pyle, a constitutional law and civil liberties scholar: [From the New York Times, Aug. 11, 19821

RUINING EXTRADITION

<By Christopher H. Pyle> SouTH HADLEY, MA.ss.-For more than two

centuries, the United States has provided a refuge to which opponents of authoritarian regimes could flee without fear that they

September 15, 1982 would be returned to stand trial for political offenses. That policy may be about to end.


The purpose of the bills-to facilitate the return of terrorists-is manifestly worthwhile. However, both bills are so badly written that they would endanger the very persons that American law governing extradition has always shielded: critics of foreign regimes, former freedom fighters against authoritarian rule, former officials of regimes that the United States once supported.

For example, both bills provide for the arrest of an accused person without any proof that he is guilty of a crime. A mere allegation by a foreign dictatorship, coupled with a promise to produce evidence sometime in the future, would be sufficient to cause the United States Government to jail the accused for months. No United States prosecutor has this power of arbitrary detention, but under these bills, Albania, Rumania, South Africa, El Salvador and about 90 more countries with which we have extradition agreements would have it, and could use it to bring about the imprisonment of their critics within the United States.


The Senate bill, which the Administration favors, would do so by stripping the courts of jurisdiction over the political crimes defense. Instead, the accused would have to raise his claim with the State Department, which could then decide whether protecting him from persecution is worth the risk of alienating the foreign government involved.


The House bill seems more protective of political refugees than the Senate bill because it would keep in the courts the power to decide the political crimes defense. However, the appearance is deceptive, because the House bill would forbid the courts to regard as political, and hence :hot extraditable, any offense involving bodily violence or a conspiracty to commit bodily violence. There is a tiny exception for crimes committed under "extraordinary circumstances," but the bill does not say what they might be. All that is clear is the political message: Protecting foreign revolutionaries from return to authoritarian regimes should be a rare, not common occurrence.

As if to emphasize a preference for authoritarian regimes, both bills would forbid the courts to question whether a request for extradition was really a subterfuge for persecution. Nor would the courts be allowed to hear evidence that the charges against the accused resulted from torture or to deny extradition on the ground that the requesting regime is notorious for brutal interrogations, unjust trials or cruel punishment. Judgments of this sort would be left to the State Department, which currently pretends that El Salvador protects human rights.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS The Administration claims that the courts

should be denied the power to look into foreign injustice in order to assure the neutrality of the United States in foreign political conflicts. However, there can be no doubt where the Justice Department's sympathies would lie; both bills would require its lawyers to represent all foreign governments in their extradition requests. The United States would be neutral-on the side of whoever happens to be in power.

In anticipation of this legislation and a treaty to implement it, the Marcos dictatorship is requesting the extradition of more than a dozen if its opponents now living in the United States. One of those charged with plotting in the United States to support bombings in the Philippines is Benigno Aquino Jr., an associate at Harvard University's School of International Affairs who ran against President Ferdinand E. Marcos in the last free election. The only "evidence" against Mr. Aquino comes from the confession of an alleged coconspirator who later recanted. claiming he had been tortured. However, if either bill now before Congress passes, that evidence will be sufficient to send this democratic politician back into the hands of the dictator he opposed.e

TAX INCREASES VERSUS REDUCED SPENDING

HON. CARROLL HUBBARD, JR. OF KENTUCKY


e Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Speaker, I have received an excellent letter from one of my constituents, attorney Wayne B. Youngblood of Mayfield, Ky., in response to the tax increase package which recently passed the Congress and was signed into law by the President. Mr. Youngblood strongly urges Members of Congress to reduce Government spending and show the citizens of this Nation that they are fiscally responsible. Reckless disregard of the ever-growing deficit must not be tolerated. I would like to share his letter with my colleagues. The letter follows:

WAYNE B. YouNGBLOOD, Mayfield, Ky., August 19, 1982.

Hon. CARROLL HUBBARD, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HUBBARD: I just heard your floor speech on the 10 P.M. news tonight concerning the "tax increase." Although I very much favored the "tax increase" bill, I was elated to hear your reason for opposing it. I too agree that we need to balance the budget by reducing spending; however, everyone else seems to be saying that that's not possible or that the Congress will never reduce spending that much. In the past, I favored the tax cut <and I've opposed tax increases> solely because I wanted to keep the pressure on the need to reduce spending. However, this current year's projected deficit just seems to me to be making our long-term goal of eliminating the national debt that much harder. With this $100 million package, with perhaps more spending cuts with your help, and with economic recovery; the next three years look great to me.

It's my view that gradual economic recovery over a few years is the best we can hope

23799 for. That slow but steady method will, in my view, teach us a lot of economic lessons along the way and leave our country with a very efficient and sound springboard for long-term growth.

I'm thrilled that you and so many others in Congress seem to agree that we must reduce spending. I'd like to see another "massive" spending reduction <I thought the last one just whittled!), and most of the government employees dislocated by it could be shifted to a collection function rather than their current "hand-out" function. I'm very much for firm enforcement of the tax laws we do have. When our country makes it clear to all that we'll never again live beyond our means with deficits year after year, I sincerely believe that we'll see an outpouring of financial and patriotic support from our citizenry. There's millions of patriotic Americans who realize that we're all heirs of the greatest country in the world; but in the past no one wanted voluntarily to throw good money in a treasury being spent with reckless disregard. The Congress seems to be talking fiscal responsibility now; when we make further progress in cutting out all the nonsensical programs in the budget, I think we'll see a degree of cooperation unseen since WWII.

Thanks for listening, and please advise if ever I can be of any help.

Sincerely, WAYNE B. YOUNGBLOOD .•

SOVIET EXPANSION

HON. DON RIITER OF PENNSYLVANIA


• Mr. RITTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an article that is well worth the attention of my colleagues and should be read by every Member in this Congress. It is an excellent article written by our colleague MicKEY EDWARDS who zeros in on the real essence of the Soviet expansion issue.

The article follows: SOVIET ExPANSION AND CONTROL OF THE SEA·

LANEs <By Mickey Edwards)

Americans felt the pinch some years back when an Arab embargo cut down the flow of oil to U.S. shores. Consider how much greater the impact might be if the expanding Soviet Navy were to cut the sea-lanes which bring oil and many other vital resources to our shores.

Soviet expansion is a growing threat to the unhindered use of the world's sea-lanes, the vital threads by which nations are linked in a web of interdependence. Anything less than global access to the world's waterways places the United States in serious jeopardy. Let us, then, consider specific examples of Soviet expansion and the likely consequences for the West if it goes unchecked.

MIDDLE EAST The 1979 invasion of Afghanistan compels

us to recognize anew the centuries-old Russian desire for warm-water ports. With the southern border of Afghanistan 350 miles from the Arabian Sea, Soviet aircraft based in southern Afghanistan are now some 500

23800 miles closer to the sea-lanes serving the Persian Gulf. At present, the Soviets are moving to upgrade the airports at Herat, Shindand, and Farah to the south into fullfledged advance air bases, In fact, Soviet aircraft are now closer to strategic points in the Persian Gulf than they would be if based in Tehran.

The ports at Gwadar in southwestern Pakistan and Chah Bahar in southeastern Iran beckon the Soviets enticingly. Naval bases in this area would provide ready access to the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz, which lies at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. The strait is a vital "choke point" through which about 60 percent of the oil destined for Western Europe moves everyday. About 77 ships a day <roughly one ship every 19 minutes> negotiate the narrow strait. Most of them are oil tankers. Since both the eastbound and westbound shipping channels are located in Oman's territorial waters, this conservative, pro-Western country is responsible for guarding the increasingly vulnerable waterway. The Omani Navy numbers around 15 ships.

The Soviet Union could obtain a corridor to the Arabian Sea if political instability grows in the area adjacent to Afghanistan's southern border. They key area is Baluchistan, a volatile and disputed territory which straddles southeastern Iran and southwestern Pakistan and whose inhabitants spill over into Afghanistan. Throughout the last decade, the Baluchis have tried to form a separate state that would be independent of both Iran and Pakistan. The separatist movement on the Iranian side has been picking up steam in recent months.

An independent Baluchistan would almost certainly need the support of an ally powerful enough to guarantee its security against Iran and Pakistan. In such an event, the Soviets could present themselves as a logical choice, possibly under the guise of a legitimate Afghan Government. The southern flank of a separate pro-Soviet Baluchistan would contain the port towns of Gwadar, Chah Bahar, Pasni, and perhaps Karachi. As much as 700-800 miles of seacoast would thus be included in the new state. Advanced air bases in southern Afghanistan coupled with access to ports on the Arabian Sea would give the Soviets a double-fisted threat to Persian Gulf oil. The Soviet Union would also possess greatly enhanced ability to neutralize U.S. naval forces in the area.

Considerations that make a drive for autonomy in Baluchistan more likely are beginning to receive careful attention in Western intelligence circles. A guerrilla organization among radical Baluchi nationalists has been forming for at least a year. In addition, there have been reports, so far unconfirmed, that the Soviets have been using Afghan intermediaries to supply arms to Baluchis in Iran. To the extent that the regime of President Babrak Karmal strengthens its control over Afghanistan, it will be increasingly able to give attention to exploiting separatist movements south of its border.

When we turn our attention west of Afghanistan, the picture is just as bleak, for that way lies Iran. Within weeks of the invasion, Soviet forces were concentrated in western Afghanistan, along the Iranian border. The strongholds of the anti-Soviet Afghanistan rebel tribesmen are located in the north and east, away from Iran. The air bases previously mentioned are within 100 miles of the Iranian border, and they are being rapidly expanded. Hundreds of tanks-perhaps as many as 3,000-have been

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS reported in the region. Soviet troops there are supported by sophisticated weapons, including armored personnel carriers, multiple-rocket launchers, self-propelled artillery, and mobile anti-aircraft guns. Clearly, Soviet forces are in position and equipped for a thrust into Iran should Moscow give the word. The justification available to the Soviets is the same they used for Afghanistan-that poltical instability in a bordering country threatens the security of the U.S.S.R.

Even apart from a military strike against Iran, the Soviets are now in a more favorable position than before to support subversion in both Iran and Pakistan and to hasten the destablization of the progressively fragile Khomeini government. One analyst who warned of the possible invasion of Afghanistan last fall warns that radical Afghan expatriates now living in Iran are in a position to play the role of Soviet surrogates in the event of a civil war in Iran.

Perhaps the situation would not be quite so ominous if Afghanistan represented the only staging point for Soviet aspirations in the Middle East. But, in fact, the Soviet Union is resolutely involving itself in countries all around the perimeter of the Persian Gulf. For example, there is evidence of a growing military presence in South Yemen, a completely Marxist, pro-Soviet country strategically located near the mouth of the Red Sea and bordering Oman. Intelligence reports have indicated that a number of Soviet surface warships and nuclear submarines have docked in South Yemen. In addition, Soviet destroyers, based in Yemen and outfitted with sophisticated electronic listening devices, have been prowling the Strait of Hormuz. East Germans virtually run the internal security system of the South Yemeni Government.

Furthermore, some analysts have assembled evidence to support the chilling contention that there are already three Cuban battalions in South Yemen. A possible role for these troops is indicated by intelligence reports that the Soviets have been shipping first-rate armored equipment to South Yemen-equipment that is much too sophisticated for their Arab clients: combat carriers, battle tanks, and anti-aircraft vehicles. This is precisely the same kind of modem equipment the Soviets have introduced into Cuba. In the wake of the Afghanistan situation, we seem to have forgotten about that infamous Soviet combat brigade in Cuba, but this is equipment the Soviets have been training the Cubans to use.

A mobile armored force in South Yemen, manned by trained personnel, is well suited for a quick strike against Oman. The size of the Omani Army is such that it could not reasonably be expected to resist such an attack. Additionally, Oman has already been plagued with insurgency problems of its own. Chiefly with British help, the Sultan of Oman was able in 1974 to defeat guerrillas in Oman's Dhofar province along the frontier it shares with South Yemen. These guerrillas were trained and armed in South Yemen and so indirectly supported by the Soviet Union. A renewed Dhofar insurgency, aided and supported by the South Yemenis, could set the stage for an attack by Cuban-manned annored divisions. Obviously, a Soviet or pro-Soviet presence in Oman would be an excellent staging point for more ambitious Russian projects in the area. One must bear in mind that many of the regimes in the Middle East are politically very fragile and vulnerable. The destabilization of the region around the Arabian pe-

September 15, 1982 ninsula could very well contribute to the destabilization of other moderate Arab governments, such as the one in Saudi Arabia.

That this is not mere speculation can be appreciated by taking a careful look at the attempted takeover of the Grand Mosque in Saudi Arabia in November 1979. For understandable reasons, the Saudis have tried to put a calm face on the episode. But European intelligence sources state that 70 to 80 of the 500 attackers received training from both Cubans and Russians in South Yemen and that Yemenis participated in the assault. Units of the South Yemen Army, supported by Soviet bloc advisors, were mobilized along the Saudi and North Yemeni borders. Large stockpiles of Soviet arms were established just inside the border. A prominent British analyst has gone so far as to say that all this was part of a large-scale plan that was to involve similar uprisings in other Saudi cities.e

"HEALTH FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY" SALUTING NATIONAL OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE WEEK

HON.THOMASCO~N OF MISSOURI



• Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, 1 week is set aside each September to honor the people involved with the medical profession that offers patients something more-osteopathic medicine. This year, September 12 to 18 has been designated as "National Osteopathic Medicine Week."

More than 20,000 osteopathic physicians practice in States throughout the Nation, caring for 20 million Americans. The vast majority of DO's provide primary care and more than half of all osteopathic physicians practice in towns with populations of less than 50,000 people, often providing medical care to families in rural communities.

There are more than 200 osteopathic hospitals in 31 States. These hospitals have close to 25,000 beds available and employ nearly 70,000 people. Osteopathic hospitals treated over 800,000 people last year as inpatients, accounting for some 6 million patient days. Another 3 million Americans were seen as outpatients.

The osteopathic profession emphasizes primary care-general practicein its medical school curricula and continuing professional education. However, many DO's are specialists, covering all areas of medical specialization from ane __ thesiology to neurology and urologic surgery.

The osteopathic prof-ession is founded on the philosophy of treating the whole person, not just the symptom or disease, because what happens in one part of the body can affect other parts. The osteopathic physician pays particular attention to joints, bones, muscles, and nerves. Osteophatic ther-

September 15, 1982 apy, the profession's "something more," often improves circulation and a normal blood supply and nerve function can enhance the body's natural healing process.

Today, we hear so much about the rising cost of health care. Osteopathic medicine emphasizes wellness and preventive care, and this approach contributes to keeping health care costs down. An important osteopathic premise is that a healthy state is the natural state of the body. However, when illness invades, the osteopathic physician considers it an invasion of the whole patient, not just an organ or a limb. Osteopathic medicine is patient oriented, not disease oriented.

Founded over 100 years ago by Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, osteopathic medical principles are built on the fact that the body is an integral unit, a whole, and the structure of the body and its functions work interdependently. To the osteopathic physician and the osteopathic hospital, each patient is unique.

It is my distinct privilege to represent the Sixth District of Missouri, the birthplace of osteopathic medicine. The first osteopathic medical school, the American School of Osteopathy, was chartered in Kirksville in 1892. Known today as the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, it is 1 of 15 such schools in the Nation. The University of Health Sciences in Kansas City, Mo., also contributes to the more than 1,000 osteopathic physicians who graduate each year from osteopathic medical schools. Many of these physicians will serve in rural areas and in communities with few physicians in relation to the population, thereby filling a crucial gap in the delivery of medical care to the American people.

We in Missouri are particularly proud of our many osteopathic hospitals. These include such fine hospitals as the Kirksville Osteopathic Health Center, a 254-bed facility with residency and intern training programs. Last year more than 40,000 inpatients and outpatients were treated at the health center.

Osteopathic physicians have made significant contributions to the practice of medicine. Osteopathic hospitals, many of which are located in small communities, serve the needs of their communities and provide quality, professional health services to the people who rely on them.

I am pleased to recognize and honor all those who are associated with osteopathic medicine.e

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

COOPERATE IN MARIHUANA ARREST

HON. IKE SKELTON OF MISSOURI


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, often we hear harsh criticisms leveled against our law enforcement officials for not catching criminals, bungling cases, and working against rather than with each other. I take this opportunity to inform my colleagues of an incident in my district which shows that local, State, and National enforcement agencies can, and do work together and, at least in this instance, the result has been a clean, successful arrest operation.

Recently, in Camdenton, Mo., the local detectives were tipped off as to where stolen street signs could be located. Upon checking into this information, they also found marihuana plants being grown on the premises. With the help of State and National officials, an arrest was made.

The result of this successful operation is that another avenue by which our young people are exposed to drugs has been closed. In an age when drugs are so readily available to destroy the minds of our young, it is gratifying to know that we have officials capable of stopping the spread of this poison.

I congratulate Sheriff Larry Whitten, Carl L. Hicks, Patrolman T. E. Simmons, Sergeant Herb Thomas, and all who aided in the arrest on this successful undertaking and thank them for their dedication which makes life safer for all Missourians.•

VETO OVERRIDE OF SUPPLE

MENTAL APPROPRIATION

HON. WILUAM D. FORD OF MICHIGAN


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, there is simply no question about the importance of the action taken by the Representatives to override the President's veto of the supplemental appropriations bill. The conference report on the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 contains a wide range of programs, all of which are essential to our constituents. The measure is in no way a "budget buster." In fact, this appropriation is almost $2 billion below the administration's fiscal year 1982 supplemental request. The funding provided in H.R. 6863 is below the fiscal year 1982 budget resolution by $8.1 billion in budget authority and $1.1 billion in outlays.

When President Reagan vetoed this measure, he nullified a number of

23801 major programs that in one way or another affect almost every citizen of my district. One of the major programs included in the bill is unemployment compensation. The bill provided benefits for up to 133,000 additional Michigan recipients which were authorized in the tax bill and $2 million for my State's program administration.

In the area of health, $122 million is appropriated to the States for the medicaid program, $6 million is appropriated for childhood immunization programs, with $1.5 million for tuberculosis vaccinations. For mental health, Michigan is targeted for $3 to $4 million in special projects and education, in addition to funding for the handicapped.

Of the $210.6 billion for senior citizen employment programs, $8 million is slated for Michigan's seniors.

In this critical period when students are finalizing their student aid for this academic year, the $217 million for student assistance is absolutely necessary. Michigan would receive $5.3 million for Pell grants and $2.8 million in supplemental educational opportunity grants, for a total of some $8.1 million. So that students' academic careers are not distrupted and so that we keep our pledge to provide financial assistance to them, it is imperative that the supplemental be approved.

In elementary and secondary education, the $148 million total contains $19 million for Michigan in compensatory education funds to offset the administration's decision to use outdated census data which cuts back on Michigan's funding. There are :1.lso $26.5 million in handicapped education, $2.5 million in vocational education, and $4.8 million for continuing education, which offset excessive cutbacks education programs have been forced to endure during the past 2 years. As the National School Boards Association noted to me in a letter encouraging my support for the override:

Those programs are major success stories; they are neither wasteful nor unnecessary.

It is clear to me that President Reagan's objections to the bill focused not on its spending total, but on its spending priorities. He simply did not like the choices we made. He believes that we have chosen to spend too much on social programs and too little on defense. Indeed, we have established spending priorities in this bill which contrast sharply with his intentions to continue adding massive amounts to the Pentagon's budget and to make deep cuts in domestic programs.

The House did a good job in passing the conference report and funding the social programs that the President wants to cut. I have been back in my congressional district every weekend and I can assure my colleagues that there are very few citizens who feel we should trade our children's health and

23802 education, jobs and medicaid assistance for our elderly, or aid to unemployed workers for unnecessary increases in defense programs. We have done the best thing for our Nation by overriding this veto.e

SOFI' TISSUE CANCERS AND VIETNAM VETERANS

HON. THOMAS A. DASCHLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Speaker, during a hearing this morning before the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations we again witnessed the Veterans' Administration's unwillingness to agree toestablish a framework for the resolution of veterans' claims due to agent orange exposure. Vietnam veterans were in effect told by the Veterans' Administration that no matter how much evidence is compiled, how conclusive it may be, their claim, if attributed to agent orange, will not be approved.

As such, I am compelled to introduce legislation to establish a presumption that soft tissue cancers appearing in Vietnam veterans are related to their service in Vietnam and therefore are compensable. There is an abundance of human data documenting the increased cancer risk to individuals exposed to dioxin, the chemical contaminant in agent orange. It is time to take action.

Following are summaries of these studies that I believe my colleagues will find of interest: [From Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News,

Feb. 13, 19801 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES LINK 2,4,5-T

EXPOSURE TO CANCER IN HUMANS, EPA SAYS A "growing body" of epidemiological evi

dence establishes a "clear association" between exposure to 2,4,5-T and dioxin and carcinogenic effects in humans, EPA asserted in its prehearing risk brief in the 2,4,5-T and silvex cancellation hearing <See separate stories).

According to EPA's Dorothy E. Patton, Office of General Counsel <OGC), four separate Swedish studies, with a fifth one expected to be published soon, link exposure to 2,4,5-T and TCDD to types of human cancer. She said the latest evidence by Swedish scientists L. Hardell and A. Sandstrom show "statisically significant increases in the risk of malignant mesenchymal tumors of the soft tissues <soft-tissue sarcomas> related to occupational exposure to phenoxy herbicides and to occupational exposure to chlorophenols."

Patton observed in a case-control study of the risk of soft-tissue sarcomas in a population in northern Sweden which includes forestry, sawmill and paper pulp workers, the researchers found that individuals previously exposed to 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D had a relative risk for soft-tissue sarcomas 5.3 times greater than unexposed individuals.

Moreover, she noted that soft-tissue sarco-mas are a rare variety of cancer and the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS case control study by the two researchers " is generally recognized as the most effective epidemiologic method for documenting the relationship between a particular causative factor and a rare type of tumor."

In yet another case control study in a different population in southern Sweden, her brief said, researchers M. Eriksson, L. Hardell, N. Bern and T. Moller found "that individuals previously exposed to phenoxy herbicides had a relative risk for soft-tissue sarcomas 6.8 times greater than unexposed individuals, thus, she noted, confirming and replicating the studies of the other Swedish researchers.

In two separate epidemiological studies of "cohort" railroad workers exposed to 2,4,5-T and TCDD, the EPA brief said each study "documented a statistically significant increase in the incidence of stomach cancers among among such workers."

Cohort studies compare the incidence of disease among a group previously exposed to a chemical compared with a group not exposed to the chemical or exposed to a lesser degree.

Patton noted that in a recent update of an "inconclusive study of mortality and tumor incidence in a cohort study of Swedish railroad workers "by 0. Axelson, C. Edling, H. Kling, K. Anderson, C. Hogstedt and L. Sundell, the researchers found "a significant excess incidence of stomach cancer among those workers first exposed to phenoxy herbicides more than ten years earlier."

The update was based on an earlier study by 0. Axelson and L. Sundell in 1974 called "Herbicide Exposure, Mortality and Tumor Incidence: An Epidemiological Investigation on Swedish Railroad Workers."

She noted that in the update by Axelson, et al., the individuals exposed to phenoxy herbicides had observed incidence of stomach tumors 6.1 times greater than expected after allowing for a ten-year induction period. Furthermore, Patton argued that in a study of a cohort of workers exposed to TCDD at an accident in a trichlorophenol plant in Ludwigshafen, German, German researchers found "an excess incidence of stomach cancer among exposed workers."

Patton asserted these studies indicate that exposure to TCDD or preparations containing TCDD "has been clearly associated with an excess risk of stomach cancer in humans.''

Using the findings of the EPA's Alsea study, coupled with the latest epidemiological studies, Patton concluded:

"Statistically significant increases in the risk of cancer and reproductive disorders have been documented in six separate human populations. These same types of adverse health effects have also been observed in experimental animals exposed to 2,4,5-T, silvex and/ or TCDD. This combination of positive epidemiological findings and corroborative animal data provides a sound basis for the conclusion that exposure to pesticide products containing 2,4,5-T or silvex constitutes a human health hazard ...

"The quality, quantity and variety of data demonstrating that the continued use of 2,4,5-T and silvex contaminated with TCDD presents risks to human health is unprecedented and overwhelming."

In previous cancellation hearings such as heptachlore/chlordane which led to the cancellation of the pesticide, she argued, cancellation was based on carcinogenic evidence in rodent test systems with other toxic effects in test animals not available

September 15, 1982 [From the Lancet, Jan. 31, 19811

2,4,5-T, TRICHLOROPHENOL, AND SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA

SIR: Case-control studies from Sweden demonstrate relative risks of 6·2 and 5·1 for occupational exposure to phenoxy herbicides and chlorophenols among cases of soft tissue sarcoma. To estimate whether this excess risk can be detected among workers in the United States, we reviewed reports of four exposed cohorts <refs 3-5 and J. A. Zack unpublished> studied by epidemiologists from Dow Chemical U.S.A. and the Monsanto Company. Of the 105 deaths reported in the four cohorts, 3 <2·9 percent) were due to soft issue sarcoma. In rough comparison, for 1975 only 0-07 percent of deaths in U.S. males aged 20-84 years were due to soft tissue sarcoma <ICD 171, 8th revision).

The workers from the four U.S. cohorts were exposed either to the phenoxy herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T> or to 2,4,5-trichlorophenol <TCP), a feedstock for 2,4,5-T. Both 2,4,5-T and TCP are contaminated with the toxic dioxin isomer 2,3, 7 ,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dloxin <TCDD) which has been found to be carcinogenic in laboratory animals.

Zack and Suskind describe a male with chloracne after exposure in a TCP process accident at Monsanto Co. in 1949. He died in 1978 at age 58 with malignant fibrous histiocytoma of soft tissue origin. <In the paper by Zack and Suskind this case is coded as ICD 173-9; however, when the diagnosis was presented to our consulting nosologist, ICD 171 was the code of choice.) Cook et al. reported a male who worked on TCP production at Dow Chemical U.S.A. and had facial dermatitis; no diagnosis of chloracne was made. He died of fibrosarcoma in 1975 at age 53. Case 3 <J. H. Zack, unpublished> worked on 2,4,5-T synthesis at Monsanto Co. and died in 1972 at age 49 of a generalised liposarcoma. No history of chloracne was reported. Only one cohort, reported by Ott et al. of 2,4,5-T workers at Dow, contained no case of soft tissue sarcoma.

None of the four cohorts individually resulted in a reported excess risk for soft tissue sarcuma. When combined, however, the three cases from the four cohorts suggest a common pattern. This finding supports the concept of combining small cohorts of workers with a common occupational exposure for analyses. Such an effort to assemble an exposure registry of all people in the U.S. who have worked at the synthesis of 2,4,5-T is underway at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health <N.I.O.S.H.> the mortality experience of the combined cohort will be analysed retrospectively and followed up prospectively. This approach will provide greater statistical power than would be available for any subgroup of the registry analysed alone. N.I.O.S.H. has also embarked on a case-control study for soft tissue sarcoma to review occupational risk factors such as exposure to the phenoxy herbicides and chlorophenols, and to test further the results obtained in the Swedish case-control studies.

Industry-wide Studies Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, N.I.O.S.H., Cincinnati, Ohio.

P. A. HONCHAR, W. E. HALPERIN.

September 15, 1982 [From the New England Journal of

Medicine, May 6, 19821 THORACIC SOFT-TISSUE SARCOMA IN VIETNAM

VETERANS EXPOSED TO AGENT ORANGE To THE EDITOR: Case-control studies from

Sweden report a fivefold to sixfold increased risk of soft-tissue sarcoma in lumberjacks exposed to herbicides containing phenoxyacetates. Long-term follow-up studies in cohorts of industrial workers employed in the manufacture of these chemicals have disclosed seven cases of soft-tissue sarcoma to date. On the basis of studies in laboratory animals, it is currently thought that dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), an impurity present in these chemicals, may be the carcinogen. However, more follow-up and further studies are needed to define the true risk of malignant disease and the actual carcinogenic substance or substances involved.)

In Vietnam, where approximately 2 million troops were stationed for various periods between 1962 and 1971, nearly 45 million kg of Agent Orange and other defoliants were used. Follow-up of the veterans and their families to date has not revealed any serious untoward effects of such exposure, except for chloracne. So far there has been no excess incidence of cancer of any kind. We now report three cases of thoracic soft-tissue sarcoma in persons who served in Vietnam and were exposed to Agent Orange.

Patient 1 worked in Vietnam as a member of a helicopter-rescue unit of the United States Air Force in areas where defoliants were used during 1966 and 1967. In July 1979, at the age of 46, he underwent resection of a right upper-lobe lung lesion, which was diagnosed as inflammatory fibrous histiocytoma. He died in July 1981 with progressive lung and brain lesions.

Patient 2 was a United States Marine in Vietnam during 1966 and 1967, stationed in areas where defoliants were being used. Twice he was "completely soaked with Agent Orange." In December 1979, at the age of 32, he underwent a left pneumonectomy for a mediastinal fibrosarcoma. In June 1981, pulmonary metastases developed. He is currently receiving combination chemotherapy.

Patient 3 was in the United States Army in Vietnam in 1971, serving in areas where the defoliants were used. In January 1981, at the age of 31, he was evaluated for a left pleural effusion. At exploratory thoracotomy in August 1981, a pleural/diaphragnatic leomyosarcoma was noted and resected.

Soft-tissue sarcomas are rare neoplasms. If there is a true risk of these neoplasms in veterans who served in Vietnam, follow-up studies should be able to define it. If there is an increased risk of malignant disease in these veterans, then a more critical question that has to be addressed is: Are the defoliants causative, or is some other unidentified environmental factor responsible, acting alone or in concert with the defoliants?

P. RAVI SARMA, M.D., JULIAN JACOBS, M.D.,

Emory University, School of Medicine.e

THE DEATH OF BASHIR GEMAYEL

HON. WM. S. BROOMFIELD OF MICHIGAN


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sorrow and shock that

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS I learned of the tragic assassination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel. His demise is a loss not only for Lebanon, but for the entire Middle East.

This talented and promising young man had already begun to restore the power and the authority of the central Lebanese Government; he had begun to reconcile the various warring political and religious factions in his country. Just a few days ago, he made anationwide appeal for Christians and Moslem communities to work together to rebuild Lebanon. I am confident that had he lived, he would have been an effective and dynamic President. In the end, however, he became the unfortunate victim of the violence and civil strife which he was attempting to stop.

I am sure that all of my colleagues here in this Chamber will join me in urging all of the concerned parties in Lebanon to exercise restraint. Let us hope that in spite of this event President Sarkis and future leaders of Lebanon will continue Mr. Gemayel's efforts to achieve rapprochement between the Muslims and Christians and restore the delicate political balance that has, until recently, existed in Lebanon. I strongly believe that the road to stabilization in Lebanon must continue to be followed.

Let us also hope that this mindless tragedy in Beirut will not undo the historic and valuable achievements of Ambassador Philip Habib, and that the march toward peace in the wartorn Middle East will continue. Bashir Gemayel would have wanted it so.e

COATED FABRIC TARIFF

HON. JAMES M. SHANNON OF MASSACHUSETTS


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. SHANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of myself and the gentleman from North Carolina <Mr. MARTIN), legislation to restore the traditional tariff treatment of coated fabric. By doing this, we intend to preserve an American industry which contributes well over $1 billion a year to our national product and provides tens of thousands of American jobs.

Since adoption of the tariff schedules of the United States in 1963, imitation leather and other plastic and rubber-coated, filled and laminated fabrics were classified as textile products for tariff purposes under schedule 3, series 355 of the tariff schedules. Schedule 3 is entitled "Textile Fibers and Textile Products," and series 355 refers specifically to textile materials "whether coated or filled."

The recent decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in U.S. v.

23803 Elbe Products Corp., 655 F. 2d 1107 <1981), decided over the objection of the Treasury Department, has eroded the longstanding classification of these products. In Elbe Products the court held that imitation leather products consisting of plastic coating over fabric were properly classified not under schedule 3, series 355, but under schedule 7 <specified products; miscellaneous and nonenumerated products), series 771 <materials "almost wholly of" rubber or plastic).

The Treasury Department has consistently argued against this result, and the Customs Service has consistently classified imitation leather and other coated fabrics under schedule 3. However, as a result of Elbe Products, the Department on March 25, 1982, issued a ruling paper establishing for customs purposes the new rule under which virtually all imitation leather must be reclassified under series 771. Other coated, laminated, or filled textile materials must also be reclassified.

If this reclassification is allowed to stand, the continued existence of our domestic industry, which has long relied on the established tariff treatment of its products, will be in severe jeopardy.

The fabrics in schedule 3 receive a duty rate as high as 13 percent plus 10 cents per pound. Fabrics reclassified to schedule 7 receive between 3. 7 percent and 5.3 percent. In addition, when fabrics are reclassified to schedule 7, imports from developing countries-such as Taiwan, Korea, Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil-become eligible under the generalized system of preferences for duty-free entry to this country. Unless action is taken now to reverse this reclassification, the results for the American industry will be tragic.

Mr. Speaker, our bill is narrowly drawn to achieve no more than a reinstatement of the tariff treatment which these fabrics have traditionally received and on which American manufacturers have relied for decades. I hope for its quick and favorable consideration.

H.R. 7118 A bill to amend the Tariff Schedules of the

United States to correct an anomaly in the rate of duty applicable to textile fabrics, articles and materials coated, filled or laminated with rubber or plastics Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Repre.!entatives of the United States of America in Congre.!s a8Sembled, That part 12 of schedule 7 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202) is amended by inserting immediately after headnote 1 of part 12 headnote the following new headnote:

"2. This part does not cover textile fabrics, articles or materials coated or filled, or laminated, with rubber or plastics or rubber or plastics materials, which are covered in part 4C of Schedule 3. The determination as to whether such textile fabrics, articles or materials are covered in part 4C of Schedule 3

23804 shall be made without regard to headnote Hvii> of part 4C of Schedule 3."

SEc. 2. Subpart C of part 4 of Schedule 3 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States <19 U.S.C. 1202) is amended by inserting immediately after headnote 2 of subpart 4C headnotes the following new headnote:

"3. In determining whether fabrics, articles and materials are 'of textile materials' and covered by this subpart, the nontextile coating or filling and nontextile laminating substances shall be disregarded."

SEc. 3. Headnote 5 of Schedule 3 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States <19 U.S.C. 1202> is amended to read as follows:

"5. For the purposes of parts 5, 6, and 7 of this schedule and parts 1 <except subpart A>, 4, and 12 of schedule 7, in determining the classification of any article <other than an article which is a fabric provided for in part 4C of this schedule) which is wholly or in part of a fabric coated or filled, or laminated, with nontransparent rubber or plastics <which fabric is provided for in part 4C of this schedule), such article shall be regarded not as a te:xtile material but as being wholly of rubber or plastics to the extent that the nontransparent rubber or plastics forms either the outer surface of such article or the only exposed surface of such fabric."

SEc. 4. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of enactment of this Act.e

JOHN GARDNER DEAD AT 49

HON. JOSEPH M. McDADE OF PENNSYLVANIA


• Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, John Gardner, the novelist, poet, and teacher whose readers throughout the Nation and the world have been growing in number for more than 10 years, has been a resident of Susquehanna County in northeastern Pennsylvania for a number of years.

In a tragic accident, Mr. Gardner was killed Tuesday in a motorcycle accident near his rural home. He was 49 years of age. His untimely death came as a shock to the innumerable fans his works have attracted, as well as to the literary and academic communities in both of which he has been a figure of great interest and respect.

Mr. Gardner, while not a Pennsylvanian by birth, was born not far away in Batavia in Genesee County in northwestern New York. His father was a dairy farmer; his mother a school teacher. He was deeply rooted in our section of the country. His writings tell us more of people and places we know.

Head of the creative writing program at the State University of New York at Binghamton since 1978, he had previously taught at colleges and universities in California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont. His own education was at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. <BA> and the State University of Iowa (MA and Ph. D.).

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS His novels-"Grendel" 0971), "The

Sunlight Dialogues" < 1972), "October Light" 0976), which won the Nation Book Critics' Circle Award, "Mickelsson's Ghosts" < 1982), and others-totaled more than two dozen in number. He also wrote plays, numerous stories, poems, librettos, an epic poem, and works of criticism, including his important 1978 book, "On Moral Fiction."

A writer like John Gardner is a man like others, yet one apart. We do not fully understand him, but he shows us more about ourselves.

We are glad that John Gardner lived among us for awhile. We deeply regret the accident that took him from the world.e

BILLS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS TO BE INTRODUCED

HON. HAROLD S. SAWYER OF MICHIGAN


• Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, most of us probably know of a teenager who was tragically maimed or killed in a drunk-driving accident. Last year alone over 25,000 Americans died in accidents involving alcohol-over 25,000 senseless and avoidable deaths.

This week the House of Representatives will be voting on two bills that could effectively reduce these horrible deaths.

One bill, the false identification bill, which I introduced in April, would penalize persons who purposely use the mails to provide minors with !.D.'s that have false birthdates, enabling minors to buy alcohol illegally. Violators could face a year in prison, $1,000 fine, or both.

The second bill, the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 embodies the provisions of H.R. 6170 which would provide highway trust fund funds to States that establish effective alcohol safety programs. Among other provisions, this 3-year program encourages statewide networks to identify repeat offenders and gives the courts broad power to recommend various punishments for offenders.

With the rising occurrence of these types of accidents, I think it is imperative that the Congress seriously address this problem by passing these two bills.e

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

HON. CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER OF RHODE ISLAND


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to fog in the Providence area, I was absent for the first

September 15, 1982 two votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted "Aye" on approval of the Journal and "No" on H.R. 4374, the Shipping Act; I request unanimous consent that the record so reflect.e

MORE ON CHEMICAL WARFARE

HON.ROBERTK.DORNAN OF CALIFORNIA


e Mr. DORNAN of California. Mr. Speaker, the damning evidence on the use of chemical warfare by the Soviet Union and its client states continues to mount. In a recent article by the Washington Post, a Soviet soldier captured by Afghan freedom fighters has alleged that Soviet forces in Afghanistan are using chemical weapons against the freedom fighters. The captured Soviet soldier said that he had seen three different kinds of chemical weapons stored by the Soviets: Picric acid which affects the eyes and respiratory system and causes burning of the skin; various asphyxiation gases; and a chemical agent referred to as "smirch" which is fired from helicopter gunships as well as jet aircraft.

In another article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Milton B. Amayun, a private Philippine missionary physician, who spent 2 years working in a Laotian refugee camp, concluded tha.t the refugees were suffering from the effects of chemical attacks by Vietnamese and Laotian forces.

Mr. Speaker, I submit these articles for the REcORD in the hopes that the world will understand that the Soviet Union and its Communist client states will use any means, including the horror and barbarity of chemical warfare, to crush the human spirit. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 19821 SoviET SoLDIER TELLs oF CHEMICAL ARMs

UsE <By Aernout Van Lynden>

IsLAMABAD, PAKISTAN, Sept. 8-A Soviet soldier, held by Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, has alleged that Soviet forces in Afghanistan are using chemical weapons against the guerilla insurgents.

Anatoly Sakharov, who said he is a 19-year-old conscripted soldier from Saransk, about 500 miles east of Moscow, said that he had seen specially stored chemical weapons at two of the four major Soviet air bases in Afghanistan-at Kabul and at Kunduz in the northern part of the country.

Sakharov said that he had never witnessed the use of chemical weapons but that on several occasions he had seen Russian soldiers who had been contaminated by gas used against the guerrilla insurgents. The soldiers, returning from combat operations, had been affected by burns, specifically in and around the eyes, and had some breathing problems, he said.

Sakharov, who was presented by the rebels to journalists yesterday for a three-

September 15, 1982 hour interview just inside the Afghan border, said he had been held by the resistance since the beginning of last month, when he had walked off the Soviet air base in Kunduz intending to defect. He said in a prepared statement that he was willing to join the rebels and realized that the Afghan people want the Soviet troops to leave.

Sakharov's comments could not be independently confirmed. It seemed unlikely that the generally unsophisticated Afghan resistance groups had forced him to make his statement, although he may have done so in hope of increasing his chances of eventually securing his freedom from the insurgents. He filled out an International Red Cross identification card and said he was aware that five Soviet prisoners held by the rebels had been transferred to detention in Switzerland this year under a Red Cross and inter-governmental program.

Sakharov said that the three different kinds of chemical weapons he had seen stored were picric acid, which affects the eyes and respiratory system and causes burning of the skin; various asphyxiation gases, and a chemical agent he referred to as "smirch."

The picric and asphyxiant gases were contained in cylinders of a "dense, yellowish" color, Sakharov said. The gas or fluid is released from the cylinders from aircraft through a vent, which is clearly visible from the outside. "Smirch," he said, is contained in rockets fired for the most part by the helicopter gunships and occasionally from aircraft, including supersonic jets. He said these rockets had certain structural differences from ordinary high-explosive rockets.

Sakharov cited a conversation he said had taken place on June 2 with a member of one of the MI-24 helicopter gunship crews stationed at Kabul. The crewmember had told him that earlier that day his crew had been ordered to go into action after a successful rebel attack on a Soviet convoy on the road between Kabul and the Soviet Union. They had been ordered to use gas masks and when they had caught up with some of the rebels, fleeing into the mountains, chemical gases had been used against the guerrillas.

Allegations of Soviet use of chemical weapons against both the rebels and Afghan civilians since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 have made repeatedly by refugees crossing the border into Pakistan, but the evidence has remained largely circumstantial.

The credibility of the charges also has been challenged because of U.S. government involvement in investigations of the use of chemical weapons by the Soviets in Afghanistan and by their Vietnamese allies in Laos and Cambodia. The U.S. charges have been used to buttress President Reagan's efforts to start production of nerve gas weapons and other chemical arms.

A 36-page special U.N. report about the use of chemicals in Afghanistan, which was leaked to the press earlier this year, was unable to come up with conclusive evidence. It did, however, include reports from doctors working in refugee camps in Pakistan who had said that on several occasions after several attacks on villages, "bodies had quickly decomposed, and limbs had separated from each other when touched."

Sakharov's testimony on the effects of "smirch," the first on the subject from a Soviet soldier fighting in Afghanistan, tallies closely with the doctors' description.

Sakharov, who appeared nervous but in good health during the interview, said he had been conscripted into the Army at the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS beginning of April and arrived in Kabul on May 17. After serving for two months at staff headquarters in Kabul, he was transferred to the air base in Kunduz.

He said he received basic training in Tashkent, with additional training after his arrival in Kabul. It was in Kabul that he underwent the standard training given to all Soviet soldiers in nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.

Sakharov said that they had been told their destination before leaving Tashkent and that the soldiers had been given some background on Afghanistan and its way of life. He had, however, not been told who precisely the enemy would be. The conscripts chatted and joked with each other about the rebels and seemed to have used the term dushman as a sort of equivalent of the American soldiers' "gook" in Vietnam.

The lean, 5 foot 10 inch blond soldier, who was wearing a military cap with the distinctive red star and golden hammer and sickle, was somewhat unclear on how he fell into the hands of the rebels. He described the atmosphere as "oppressive" at the two bases where he served, and he seemed to have had major disciplinary problems. The soldiers had not been allowed to leave the barracks, and there was little entertainment, he said.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 22, 1982]

DOCTOR WHO TREATED AsiAN REFUGEES FINDs EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE

<By Gerald F. Seib) WASHINGTON.-Like his colleagues, the

doctor was highly skeptical of reports that refugees in Southeast Asia had been victims of chemical warfare.

But after misdiagnosing hundreds of refugees as victims of tuberculosis and other lung diseases, he reconsidered. He listened more closely as the refugees told of mysterious attacks in Laos, and he began doing research. In the end, the doctor and his colleagues concluded that the refugees were indeed suffering the effects of chemical attacks. "We named the disease poison gas syndrome," he recalls.

That, in a nutshell, is the experience of Dr. Milton B. Amayun, a private Philippine doctor who spent two years working at a Laotian refugee camp in Thailand. He recently laid out his story in a report submitted to a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee studying the Reagan administration's charges that Soviet-equipped troops have been methodically using chemical weapons in Laos and Cambodia.

Dr. Amayun's story is a vivid case study of how outsiders are piecing together information suggesting that chemical warfare is being waged by Vietnamese and Laotian forces in Laos and Vietnamese forces in Cambodia. Like others who have struggled with the mysterious evidence, Dr. Amayun can't completely prove the case. In his report, which hasn't been made public yet, and a telephone interview, he acknowledges many questions he can't answer. He can't, for example, prove that the chemicals being used are the rare mycotoxins the State Department has singled out.

But Dr. Amayun's report fits into a pattern of evidence that has led the State Department to wage a public campaign against what it says are Soviet-inspired "yellow rain" chemical attacks. Congressional staffers familiar with the issue consider Dr. Amayun's story significant for several reasons. He seems an impartial source, because congressional staffers sought him out to make the report, without prompting from

23805 the State Department. The doctor isn't a government employee or even an American, so he apparently hasn't any political motives.

Dr. Amayun is a physician for World Vision International, a missionary organization that provides medical help around the globe. He began working in the Ban Vinai refugee camp, situated in Thailand about seven miles from the Laotian border, in 1979.

The camp had just swelled to 42,000 refugees fleeing the fighting in Laos between the Soviet-supported Laotian government and rebel forces. Practically all the refugees in the camp were members of the Hmong highland tribe, which has resisted government control.

Early in his duty, Dr. Amayun found that each day he was seeing 20 to 30 patients suffering from respiratory difficulties. They complained of coughing that produ~ed bloody discharges, weight loss, anorexia and general malaise. Dr. Amayun and his colleagues decided they had a rash of tuberculosis and paragonimiasis, another lung disease, on their hands.

So in January 1980 they initiated a "major TB program," his report says. Six laboratory technicians were recruited to do mass screenings. A pathologist and tuberculosis nurse were brought in. The camp established a system to methodically diagnose and treat the diseases.

But after months of screening, laboratory technicians found that out of several hundred cases only 25 patients had tuberculosis and 30 had paragonimiasis.

"It was at this point," Dr. AmaYtm reported, "that we began to listen more carefully to the explanation given by the refugees for their malady: 'colored dust from the skies that kills.' "

The doctors began doing careful interviews of the refugees, a step passed over earlier because of, among other things, a formidable language barrier between the Hmongs and outsiders. In almost every "unexplainable" respiratory case, Dr. Amayun contends, it turned out that victims had a story of killer dust or smoke. In the interviewing process, doctors heard stories of orphaned children, animals killed instantly and poisoned streams.

So Dr. Amayun, who had become camp medical coordinator, opened a file of suspected gassing victims. He called in other doctors from refugee committees, the U.S. Embassy, the Canadian Embassy and World Vision. Most, he contends, were convinced that chemical attacks were taking place.

One outsider was notably unconvinced. The local representative of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was "openly skeptical of the reports," Dr. Amayun says in his report. The U.S. government has been similarly frustrated in attempts to arouse U.N. interest. In an interview, Dr. Amayun says the U.N. is slow to respond "mainly because its findings would mean an indictment of some countries."

In the end, Dr. Amayun concluded that "chemicals have been used against the Hmong intermittently since 1976.'' He isn't sure exactly which chemicals. The symptoms are unfamiliar enough that Dr. Amayun suspects the U.S. may be right in charging that rare trichothecene mycotoxins are being used. But "I couldn't identify mycotoxins because even now few doctors know what the effects of mycotoxins are," he says.

Dr. Amayun left the refugee camp in the spring of 1981 and currently is at World Vi-

23806 sion's offices in California. He says other doctors are similarly convinced chemical warfare is being conducted. But because they weren't as familiar with the Hmong, or are afraid of making political waves, some are more reluctant to speak up than he is.

"I feel responsible because the Hmong are voiceless," he says. "They have few advocates in this.e

BOY SCOUT TROOP 29 CELEBRATES ITS 50TH ANNIVERSARY

HON. PHILLIP BURTON OF CALIFORNIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. PHILLIP BURTON. Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 2, and 3, 1982, Boy Scout Troop 29, under the sponsorship of the San Francisco Buddhist Church, will celebrate its 50th anniversary. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the accomplishments of troop 29 and commend the troop on their achievements and successes in the Scouting program.

Although many of the important documents concerning the history of troop 29 were lost when JapaneseAmerican families were interned during World War II, through the memories and recollections by the Scouts of that era, and the recovery of several old photographs of the troop during its early days, it has been possible to reconstruct part of the troop's historical past.

This troop, which has served the San Francisco community for almost half a century, began modestly in 1932. Headed by Mr. Mikio Fujimoto, and centered in the basement of an old Victorian-styled home, this dynamic organization promptly gained international recognition, when its drum and bugle corps performed at the World Exposition in 1939.

Unfortunately, the troop was disbanded during World War II as a result of the tragic internment of Japanese Americans during this time. However, the troop's moral responsibilities and teachings passed on to its participants, as many former Scouts joined and served in the U.S. Armed Forces to defend our Nation during that time of crisis.

Indeed, the troop had been so successful prior to the war that many Japanese Americans after the war felt the reorganization and the rebuilding of Boy Scout Troop 29 was a top priority in educating the Japanese Americans of this Nation.

Once the effort was made, troop 29 prospered. In its 50-year history, over 350 families have sent their children to participate and become part of the Boy Scout program in troop 29. This troop has dedicated itself to bettering the community in which it thrives and can point to an impressive 52 members

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS who have attained the prestigious rank of Eagle Scout.

The troop has made three trips to Japan-in 1965, 1974, and 1982-to participate in the Boy Scout World Jamborees. Their trips have been invaluable in promoting a good will relationship between the Scouts of Japan and the Scouts of this country.

Today, the proud tradition of troop 29 lives through the effective leadership of Scoutmaster Art Sawada. Scouting is an institution in our society which stresses the ideals and values of trust, courtesy, and self-reliance. These principles are exemplified in troop 29 as led by Mr. Sawada.

This year, as troop 29 celebrates its "Golden Anniversary," I wish to extend to them my heartfelt congratulations on their past achievements and wish them the best of luck in the decades ahead.e

OPPOSITION TO THE MARCOS STATE VISIT

HON. TED WEISS OF NEW YORK



• Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, the official state visit of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos is an affront to the basic tenets of American foreign policy. The Marcos regime has conducted 17 years of injustice, repression, denial of human rights, and the militarization of the region. Since 1974 U.S. Presidents have gradually encouraged improved ties with Marcos, but President Reagan is now breaking with that process and welcoming Marcos with open arms and full support.

Our Nation's global role is hurt by this visit. The President of the United States has turned his back on human rights in the Philippines.

More than 2 weeks ago I was joined by four of our colleagues in calling on President Reagan to cancel the planned visit. Since then, four other Members of the House of Representatives have added their support. Our concern is spelled out in the "Statement of Opposition to the Marcos State Visit" that appears below.

I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of the Marcos visit for our relations with other repressive leaders, and thus our international effectiveness at pursuing foreign policy that reflects the values of our Nation:

STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO THE MARcos STATE VISIT

The projected state visit of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos should distress all those concerned with struggling for a foreign policy which truly serves the interests of peace, justice, and human rights.

The visit does not have the character of a "normal courtesy" accorded a foreign chief

September 15, 1982 of state. Rather, it marks the culmination of a process of "normalization" with a repressive ally. Over the last year and a half, the Reagan administration has thrown its support fully behind Marcos, in spite of the latter's well-known and documented violations of human rights. This administration has even gone so far as declaring that these abuses are imaginary, as did Vice President George Bush when he lauded Marcos last year as an "adherent to democratic rights and processes."

Marcos' record, however, cannot be expunged. A recent confidential U.S. Embassy Report itself admits that cases of "salvaging" or unofficial executions carried out by the military have increased in many areas. U.S. military aid-now totalling over $100 million annually-goes to fuel an abusive military, many of whose members, according to the same report, engage in banditry and kidnapping. Torture and other abuses continue to be so prevalent that Amnesty International has declared the month of September as a period to spotlight human rights violations in the Philippines.

The policy of support for the Marcos government which successive administrations since Richard Nixon's have followed is a record we as American legislators are deeply ashamed of. Currently, this policy is justified under the rubric of "national security." We ask, however: What "security interests" are served by propping up an unpopular dictator? Whose interests are advanced by a policy of aggressive militarism that consists of backing isolated regimes such as those in El Salvador and the Philippines, whose only function is to thwart their people's desire for justice, national sovereignty, and equality?

What is deeply alarming is that the Reagan administration has now taken a major step towards extending Marcos' martial law to the Filipino community in the United States by negotiating an Extradition Treaty with the Philippines, the main purpose of which, the regime has openly admitted, is to send back Marcos' U.S.-based political foes. This move has gone hand-in-hand with the convening of a Federal Grand Jury to indict so-called "Filipino terrorists" under the Neutrality Act. And, as if these developments were not disturbing enough, evidence is now surfacing that the murder of two anti-Marcos labor union activists in Seattle in 1981 was the fruit of closer coordination between U.S. and Philippine security agencies.

The costs of this policy of backing Marcos and other dictators are borne not only by the Filipino people and the Filipino community in the U.S. Curtailing the rights of a sector of the population to free speech and political assembly may inevitably lead to curtailing the rights of all. Moreover, the working people and the poor of this country have to bear the brunt of economic costs of this policy, with the transfer of billions of dollars from the social budget to the everescalating defense budget.

It is high time that we as legislators take the lead in forging a new policy toward the Philippines, one based on equality, justice, and mutual respect among peoples-not on domination and support for repression.

An important first step in this process is to strongly protest and oppose the state visit of Ferdinand Marcos. This will not make up for our government's record of consistent support for the dictatorship. But it will, we hope, contribute to forging a new, enlightened, and equal relationship between

September 15, 1982 the people of the Philippines and the people of the United States.

The institution of emergency rule by Mr. Marcos on August 31 is a blatant repudiation of any expectation that the Marcos regime will ever democratize. Emergency rule is nothing but a pretext to reimpose martial law, which was lifted in name last year. This development makes it all that more imperative for President Reagan to cancel the invitation for a state visit.

Ted Weiss, Ron Dellums, Bob Edgar, Fortney Stark, Walter E. Fauntroy, Tom Harkin, Berkley Bedell, James Oberstar, Sam Gejdenson, Members of Congress.e

OPPOSITION TO THE EXTRADITION ACT OF 1982

HON. PATRICIA SCHROEDER OF COLORADO


e Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 6046, the Extradition Act of 1982.

You will notice that the general tendency to label bills as "reform., has been resisted in this case and for good reason.

This bill takes some serious steps backward particularly in the narrowing of the definition of a political offense. However, from my point of view, what is even more troubling is the failure of this legislature to make the necessary reforms in the existing law.

In light of the alliances that the administration is making and strengthening with dictatorships around the world and its refusal to acknowledge systematic violations of human rights in countries such as El Salvador, we urgently need reform of the extradition laws.

Specifically. we need to assure the the rights of persons in the United States-citizens and aliens alike-are protected by the courts and are not dependent on the good will of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.

Extradition reforms would: Apply the Bail Reform Act to those held for extradition, reversing the current presumption against bail and insuring that people will not be held in American jails because of the mere assertion of a foreign government that they had committed extraditable offenses; permit the courts to consider allegations that a person being extradited would be accorded due process rather than leaving such determinations to a Secretary of State who believes that Salvadoran peasants receive appropriate due process; and permit the courts to consider allegations that the request for extradition is a subterfuge and the person will be imprisoned because of political views or peaceful political activity. Again, such determinations cannot be left to the Secretary of State.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Mr. Speaker, it is far too late in the

session to give this issue the careful attention it deserves. I hope that H.R. 6046 will not be scheduled. If it is, I intend to insist that it be fully debated and that a series of amendments be considered which will make this into genuine reform legislation while eliminating the further erosion of rights contained in the bill.e

SOCIAL SECURITY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA


e Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington Report for Wednesday, September 15, 1982, into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

SOCIAL SECURITY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

In recent meetings I have held in the Ninth District, social security is still a prime topic of discussion. Hoosiers want to know about the outlook for the trust funds, and they ask questions on almost every other aspect of the program. These are some of the most frequently heard questions, and my responses:

Question. Why isn't something being done about social security for prisoners?

Answer. Much has been done. A few years ago, reports indicated that some 30,000 prisoners were receiving $60 million every year in social security benefits. Although these figures were very exaggerated, Congress recognized the problem and passed a law in 1980 to deny disability and student benefits to felons. The number of beneficiaries in prison was actually 6,000 to 7,000 in 1980. Approximately 80% of them were receiving disability or student benefits and have since been dropped from the rolls. The remaining prisoners have been receiving retirement benefits primarily, which would be terminated by bills now pending in Congress.

Question. Are the trust funds being used to pay welfare benefits?

Answer. No. By law, the trust funds cannot be used for any purpose other than the payment of social security benefits to families who have paid into the system. The misconception that welfare benefits are paid arises from the fact that the Social Security Administration handles a welfare program called Supplemental Security Income <SSI>. However, SSI is funded by general tax revenue, not by the trust funds.

Question. Is it true that the trust funds loaned large sums of money to the Defense Department during World War II-sums which have never been repaid?

Answer. No. The trust funds have always invested their surplus monies in government securities. There has always been full and timely repayment of these securities-with interest.

Question. How realistic is the proposal to end the yearly payment of $700 million in social security benefits to aliens living outside the United States?

Answer. There are problems with it. For the most part, these benefits go to people who paid the pay roll tax when they worked in the United States. Ending their benefits might be seen as an attempt to deprive them of something they had earned. Some

23807 experts have questioned how much could be saved in any case, since millions of dollars collected from aliens would have to be returned and current contributions from aliens would have to be stopped. Moreover, such a move by the United States could prompt other nations to retaliate and cut off the sizeable pensions they are paying to American citizens.

Question. If a person pays into social security for years, how can his account possibly come up short when he begins to draw on it?

Answer. Social security is not set up like a savings account, in which a person's deposits accumulate slowly and then are withdrawn during retirement. From the beginning, it has been a "pay-as-you-go" system, with taxes paid in almost immediately paid out in the form of benefits. A person is paying the retirement benefits of his parent's generation; his retirement benefits will be paid by his children's generation.

Question. Can a person expect io get back in benefits as much as he paid in?

Answer. In general, yes. Past and present retirees will get the greatest return on investment because of their smaller pay roll deductions. For example, someone reaching 65 years of age in 1981 who paid the maximum tax throughout his working life contributed $14,700, a sum which he and his wife will get back during his first year or more of retirement. Overall, the average retired person today can hope to collect benefits five times as great as his contribution, plus interest. Even though the size of the return will greatly decline for those who retire in future years, the average younger worker is still expected to recover more in benefits than he paid in. In addition, his participation in social security may include survivors' and disability benefits and medical care in retirement.

Question. Why aren't government employees included in social security?

Answer. At present, some 10 percent of the labor force is not covered by social security. This includes 3 million federal civilian employees and 4 million workers in state and local government. When the system was set up in 1935, federal civilian employees were not included because they already had their own retirement system and were not considered to be as needy as older workers in commerce and industry. Employees of state and local governments were not included because of the questionable constitutionality of a compulsory federal tax affecting other governmental entities. The participation of state and local government workers was made voluntary, and currently about two thirds of them are covered. It is widely known that Congress will soon consider mandatory cove1-age for state and local government workers and for federal civilian employees.

Question. Why are benefits reduced when retirees decide that they want to work?

Answer. As the law is now written, retirees aged 65 to 71 years lose 50 cents in benefits for every dollar they earn in excess of $6,000 per year. Proponents of this "earnings test" say that it preserves the integrity of social security by ensuring that benefits replace income lost because of retirement. Also, elimination of the test would cost the system more than $8 billion per year. Beginning in 1983, the maximum age at which the test applies will drop to 69 years.

Question. Who determines whether retirees will get a cost-of-living increase each year?

23808 Answer. Retirees are entitled to a cost-of

living increase by law, not by presidential edict. This law states that there will be an increase whenever inflation exceeds 3 percent per year. President Reagan wanted to change the law and delay the increase, but he withdrew his plan when he encountered stiff opposition in Congress.e

EXTRADITION: A CIVIL LIBERTIES PROBLEM

HON. SHIRLEY CHISHOLM OF NEW YORK


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mrs. CHISHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention some serious reservations which I have about H.R. 6046, the Extradition Act of 1982.

The bill as reported from the House Judiciary Committee not only fails to correct the current deficiencies in the extradition process but also narrows the scope of judicial review. This provision creates the risk that authoritarian regimes could in collaboration with the executive branch deprive foreigners and American citizens of their constitutional rights. Already we can see a dangerous precedent in the naming of persons for extradition to the Philippines before the Senate has even ratified the United States-Philippine Extradition Treaty. In addition, the asylum case of Dennis Brutus raises the possibility of a political opponent of the South African Government being faced with persecution because of his outspoken views. As indicated by the above examples, this legislation could clearly be used as a subterfuge to punish political opponents for their views.

I would hope that the house will not rush to judgment on H.R. 6046 but will instead give due consideration to the perfecting amendments to be offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CROCKETT) when this bill is brought to the floor. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the following editorial from the New York Times of August 11 by Prof. Christopher Pyle of Mount Holyoke College for my colleagues' attention. [From the New York Times, Aug. 11, 19821

RUINING EXTRADICTION By Christopher H. Pyle

SoUTH HAnLEY, MAss.-FoR MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES, THE UNITED STATES HAS PRO· VIDED A REFUGE TO WHICH OPPONENTS OF AU· THORITARIAN REGIMES COULD FLEE WITHOUT FEAR THAT THEY WOULD BE RETURNED TO STAND TRIAL FOR POLITICAL OFFENSES. THAT POLICY MAY BE ABOUT TO END.


The purpose of the bills-to facilitate the return of terrorists-is manifestly worth-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS while. However, both bills are so badly written that they would endanger the very persons that American law governing extradition has always shielded: critics of foreign regimes, former freedom fighters against authoritarian rule, former officials of regimes that the United States once supported.

For example, both bills provide for the arrest of an accused person without any proof that he is guilty of a crime. A mere allegation by a foreign dictatorship, coupled with a promise to produce evidence sometime in the future, would be sufficient to cause the United States Government to Jail the accused for months. No United States prosecutor has this power of arbitrary detention, but under these bills, Albania, Rumania, South Africa, El Salvador and about 90 more countries with which we have extradition agreements would have it, and could use it to bring about the imprisonment of their critics within the United States.


The Senate bill, which the Administration favors, would do so by stripping the courts of jurisdiction over the political crimes defense. Instead. the accused would have to raise his claim with the State Department, which could then decide whether protecting him from persecution is worth the risk of alienating the foreign government involved.


The House bill seems more protective of political refugees than the Senate bill because it would keep in the courts the power to decide the political crimes defense. However, the appearance is deceptive, because the House bill would forbid the courts to regard as political, and hence not extraditable, any offense involving bodily violence or a conspiracy to commit bodily violence. There is a tiny exception for crimes committed under "extraordinary circumstances," but the bill does not say what they Inight be. All that is clear is the political message: Protecting foreign revolutionaries from return to authoritarian regimes should be a rare, not common occurrence.

As if to emphasize a preference for authoritarian regimes, both bills would forbid the courts to question whether a request for extradition was really a subterfuge for persecution. Nor would the courts be allowed to hear evidence that the charges against the accused resulted from torture or to deny extradition on the ground that the requesting regime is notorious for brutal interrogations, unjust trials or cruel punishment. Judgments of this sort would be left to the State Department, which currently pretends that E1 Salvador protects human rights.

The Administration claims that the courts should be denied the power to look into foreign injustice in order to assure the neutrality of the United States in foreign political conflicts. However, there can be no doubt where the Justice Department's sympathies would lie; both bills would require its lawyers to represent all foreign governments in their · extradition requests. The United States would be neutral-on the side of whoever happens to be in power.

September 15, 1982 In anticipation of this legislation and a

treaty to implement it, the Marcos dictatorship is requesting the extradition of more than a dozen of its opponents now living in the United States. One of those charged with plotting in the United States to support bombings in the Philippines is Benigno Aquino Jr., an associate at Harvard University's School of International Affairs who ran against President Ferdinand E. Marcos in the last free election. The only "evidence" against Mr. Aquino comes from the confession of an alleged co-conspirator who later recanted, claiming he had been tortured. However, if either bill now before Congress passes, that evidence will be sufficient to send this democratic politician back into the hands of the dictator he opposed.

(Christopher H. Pyle teaches constitutional law and civil liberties at Mount Holyoke College.>•

THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL ACT

HON. HAROLD S. SAWYER OF MICHIGAN



e Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 11, 1982, President Reagan announced that he was sending to Congress a second package of anticrime measures. I am pleased to introduce that package, the Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1982, in this body today.

As the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Crime, I concur in the President's view which he expressed on Saturday that Americans are sadly losing faith in our criminal justice system. The President correctly observed that the primary responsibility for dealing with violent career criminals rests with State and local authorities. However, there are steps that the Federal Government can take within our constitutional system to address the problem of violent crime and to thereby restore the confidence of the American people in the legal system.

The package which I am introducing today has three titles. The first makes important modifications in the insanity defense and is similar in many ways to the provisions contained in the Violent Crime Control Act which I introduced last November. Although the insanity defense is raised in relatively few cases, the John Hinckley case is a stunning illustration of the tragedy which ensues when the defense operates unjustly. It is imperative that the Federal Government correct the potential which currently exists for criminals to escape the punishment which they justly deserve.

Title II of the bill modifies the exclusionary rule which has been promulgated under the fourth amendment. Like H.R. 5971, which I introduced earlier this year with the support of the chairman of the Subcom-

September 15, 1982 mittee on Crime <Mr. HUGHES), it would provide that evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure which is otherwise admissible as evidence shall not be excluded in a Federal court proceeding if the search or seizure was undertaken by the law enforcement officer in a reasonable, good faith belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment, even if the courts later rule it was not. The bill also provides that a showing that the evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of such a belief, unless the warrant was obtained with intentional and material misrepresentation. This modification codifies recent case law in this area and honors the rationale underlying the exclusionary rule. As the Supreme Court noted in Elkins against United States, the "basic postulate of the exclusionary rule • • • is • • • to deterto compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way-by removing the incentive to disregard it." 364 U.S. 206, 217 <1960). Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has become so complex that even the greatest legal minds can strongly disagree as to its applicability in a particular factual situation. It should come as no surprise, then, when the police officer's judgment on the constitutionality of his actions is subsequently overruled by the courts. Where the officer acts within a reasonable, good faith belief that his search or seizure was constitutional, he needs no further incentive to act legally. A subsequent reversal by the courts will serve only to demoralize him, embolden the criminal, and endanger the public. The provisions in this bill, like my bill, will address the problems created by the exclusionary rule, while preserving its intended benefits.

Title III of the bill would amend title 28 of the United States Code governing petitions for habeas corpus relief. Our Federal courts are currently overwhelmed by petitions for habeas corpus relief, particularly from State prisoners. Although such relief should, of course. be available where there has been manifest injustice, all too frequently these petitions are without merit. The President has recommended various changes which will discourage the filing of unmeritorious claims. Included among his recommendations are restrictions on the availability of Federal habeas corpus relief where a State defendant has failed to raise a claim properly in State proceedings, a statute of limitations on the filing of petitions for habeas corpus relief, authority for the Federal court to deny a habeas corpus petition on the merits notwithstanding the petitioner's failure to exhaust State remedies. and provisions according greater deference to full and fair

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS State decisions. These proVISIOns, along with recent decisions of the Supreme Court, should have a beneficial impact on the Federal courts' caseloads, while preserving the rights of prisoners.

Mr. Speaker, this package is the second that the President of the United States has sent to this Congress. Unfortunately, the first package, like my own Violent Crime Control Act, is languishing in committee. The gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HuGHES) and I have been successful in moving various individual crime bills through this body, including legislation to criminalize the misuse of false identification documents and a bill to criminalize violent attacks on Cabinet officers and other high Government officials, which were just passed this week. Other significant measures, and particularly my bill, H.R. 4362, which would provide limited authority for the Federal courts to detain dangerous criminals prior to trial, have not been processed with the same speed. I urge the committee leadership to move these measures promptly during the closing weeks of this Congress so that effective crime legislation will be the landmark of the 97th Congress.e

THANK YOU TO SPONSORS OF CONGRESSIONAL FOSTER CHILDREN REDSKIN GAME

HON. WALTER E. FAUNTROY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



e Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, August 27, 1982, the First Annual Congressional Foster Children Redskin Game was played at R. F. K. Stadium.

Thanks to the generosity of the Members and their staffs listed below, 80 District of Columbia foster children got to see their first Redskins game.

On behalf of those children, the District of Columbia Department of Human Services and the citizens of the District of Columbia, thank you for your generosity.

Hon. Howard Wolpe and Staff; Hon. Joseph P. Addabbo and Staff; Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Hon. Lynn Martin and Staff; Hon. Gerry E. Studds and Staff; Hon. Norman F. Lent; Hon. Tony P. Hall and Staff; Mary Ann Green <staff>; Hon. John Breaux and Staff; Hon. Robert A. Roe and Staff; Hon. L. A. <Skip) Bafalis; Lucy McLelland and Staff; Marsha and Roger Runningen <staff>; Hon. Lindy Boggs and Staff; Hon. Martin Frost; Hon. Jack Edwards Staff; Hon. John Edward Porter; Hon. Claude Pepper and Staff.

Hon. Wyche Fowler Staff; Susie Rudolph <staff>; House Republican Whip Staff; Edward C. Sylvester, Jr. <staff>; Hon. Bill Chappel and Staff; Karen L. Jefferson <staff>; Hon. Tom Hagedorn and Staff; Hon. Jamie Whitten and Staff; Hon. David Bonior and Staff; Hon. Joseph D. Early and

23809 Staff; Hon. Ray Kogovsek and Staff; Hon. Harold Washington; Hon. Joseph G. Minish and Staff; Hon. Buddy Roemer and Staff; Hon. Olympia Snowe and Staff; Hon. R. H. Mollohan; Grace DeMaio <staff>.

Hon. Tom Tauke and Staff; Hon. Peter A. Peyser and Staff; Hon. Don Ritter and Staff; House Budget Committee Staff; Hon. Anthony C. Beilenson and Staff; Hon. Bill Goodling and Staff; Shelley Goomas, Kris Solberg, Doug Richardson <staff>; Hon. Wes Watkins and Staff; Hon. Marty Russo; Hon. Michael G. Oxley and Staff; Hon. Ron Mazzoli and Staff; Cynthia Simmons and Kack Harrison <staff); Senator Robert Kasten and Staff; Hon. Stewart McKinney and Staff; Nelson Rimensnyder <staff>; Hon. Eugene Atkinson; Senator Ernest F. Hollings and Staff; Hon. Walter E. Fauntroy and Staff; Committee on Veterans' Affairs; Hon. Steve Gunderson and Staff.e

WATER SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL REGULATIONS

HON. BERKLEY BEDELL OF IOWA



• Mr. BEDELL. Mr. Speaker, I note with great interest an article in the September 12 Washington Post entitled "Wheat Farmer Stuns the West With Water Suit." It depicts the background of the case leading to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Sporhase against Nebraska that water is an article of commerce subject to congressional regulation.

Declaring water to be an article of commerce overturns the longstanding ruling by Justice Holmes in 1908 that water is a special resource not to be subject to a traditional commerce clause analysis. Rather, it should be treated, he reasoned, as a resource which is protected in the public's interest and not put up on the auction block to be made available to the highest bidder. Indeed, Congress has deferred to the States the responsibility to conserve and preserve their water resources, believing they are better suited to consider this delicate matter.

The Sporhase decision may begin to erode the established and complex system of State law regulating the use of these resources, particularly in the water-scarce western region of these resources, particularly in the waterscarce western region of our country. I am extremely concerned that the decision may open the door to wholesale transfers of water across State lines to the detriment of the legitimate right of our States to protect its water resources. The Supreme Court may well have given credence to the old saying that only money can make water run uphill.

Sporhase, in declaring water to be an article of commerce, gives Congress the authority to regulate it. A greater need now exists for the legislation I have introduced to protect shared-

23810 water resources. H.R. 5278, cosponsored by 24 of our colleagues, would prevent sales or transfers of interstate water resources unless the affected drainage basin States formed a compact and consented to the sale or transfer. This legislation provides a framework for the resolution of conflict, and treats all affected parties equally.

Mr. Speaker, I include the Post article in the RECORD for our colleagues to review. £From the Washington Post, Sept. 12, 19821

WHEAT FARMER STUNS THE WEST WITH WATER SUIT

<By Dale Russakoff) HoLYOKE, CoLo., September 11.-He is a

lifelong wheat farmer with an eighth-grade education. He files his legal documents in a cardboard fruit crate labeled "Pears Net Wt. 9 lbs." One of his lawyers is a self-described "country hick" and the other is fresh out of Creighton Law School in Omaha.

Yet Joy Sporhase, who says he is "proud to live in a country where you can go straight to the top," singlehandedly has shaken much of the West, upsetting the precarious legal system that guards the region's most precious resource: water.

All he wanted was to irrigate his Colorado corn and bean fields with water from his well just over the state line in Nebraska.

But nothing concerning water in the West is quite so simple. Sporhase stumbled onto a Nebraska law banning the shipment of underground water into Colorado. He fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. On July 2, he won.

Now Sporhase v. Nebraska has grown into something greater than one farmer's fight to irrigate his land. A dozen western states have laws similar to Nebraska's and most of them are in jeopardy.

The laws are part of an intricate legal system that rations the West's water between farmers and industry, and between states. Where there is water, there is wealth. Therefore, this system has shaped the West, and anything that challenges the system threatens the region's economic order.

Some politicians and interest groups predict that the Sporhase case could set off a "water rush," allowing huge energy companies to reach across state lines and guzzle water needed by farmers, toppling agriculture as the region's No. 1livelihood.

Others say the impact will be gradual at most, that Sporhase is only the first in a series of cases that could reshape the distribution of the West's water profoundly.

As they pore over the ruling, these people often wonder at the upheaval caused by one hard-headed farmer whose land happened to straddle a state line.

"Sometimes," said water rights attorney Paul Bloom, "the most absurdly localized circumstances produce cosmic law. That's what you learn in law school. It's called precedent."

That's where Joy Sporhase, 65, came in. (Joy traditionally is a man's name in the Sporhase family). He didn't even intend to buy the farm. He and his son-in-law and partner, Delmar Moss, went to a farm auction near here in 1972 planning to buy some cattle. The land also was up for sale, and the highest bidder had offered $145 an acre.

"I thought to myself, heck, if it ain't gonna bring any more than that, why not buy it?" Sporhase recalled. He bid $146.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS "Before we knew it, we'd bought a farm,"

he said. Word of the spur-of-the-moment purchase traveled fast to town, where Sporhase's wife, Gladys, was shopping. "Somebody said two crazy guys bought a farm, and I just knew it had to be them," she recalled.

The land covered 640 acres: 140 in Colorado and 500 in Nebraska, across the gravel road that is the state line at that point. It had a well, a fairly unremarkable contraption sitting 55 feet inside Nebraska. The former owner had written on his Nebraska well registration form that he intended to use the well to irrigate his land on both sides of the state line, and no one ever questioned him about it.

The well was routinely assigned the number G-33893 on Jan. 18, 1971-a number and a date that since have become part of the history of American water law. "See that?" Sporhase said as he pulled the registration form out of his fruit crate, pointing to the rough, handprinted words.

Several years later, Sporhase and Moss built a $47,000 sprinkling system to dribble water from the Nebraska well on their Colorado com and bean fields. They contend that they notified state officials of their plan and were not warned against it.

"We were Ininding out own business," Sporhase said, "and here comes our first letter in the mail." He pulled the 1976 letter from the state Department of Water Resources from the crate. It referred to the 1971 registration form and the plan to pipe water from well No. G-33893 into Colorado. The letter threatened legal action if Sporhase and Moss persisted. "State law prohibits such activity," it said.

"We couldn't see where in the heck it made any difference," Sporhase said. "We owned the land on both sides of the line. The water sure wasn't paying any attention to where the line was. When Delmar went to Korea and my son went to Vietnam, it didn't make any difference what state the boys were from, did it?"

By an accident of geography, Sporhase and Moss found thexnselves at the center of the West's water troubles. Their farm sits atop a rock formation known as the Ogallala acquifer, the largest underground water source in the country, which now is drying up at an alarming rate.

The acquifer, which traps water like a sponge, supplies water for 15 Inillion acres of farmland from South Dakota to Texas. At the current rate of use, it will dry up within 40 years, according to one study.

The states that depend on the acquifer have written volumes of rules and laws to try to keep what water remains to themselves. Colorado bans the export of underground water. Nebraska outlaws piping water from the acqu1fer to any state that in tum bans piping it into Nebraska.

Sporhase applied to Colorado for a permit to drill a well on that side of the line, but was turned down because state officials said the acqu1fer was already overused in his area. This meant he would have to let his 140 Colorado acres go dry, devaluing the land from $168,000 to $56,400.

Instead, the two farmers defied the Nebraska warning and continued to irrigate their Colorado land. When Nebraska filed suit as promised, Sporhase went straight to his lawyer, Dick Dudden of nearby Ogallala, Neb.

Dudden still recalls the day his fiesty farmer-client stormed into the office and vowed: "If I have to take my case to the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm going to do it."

The state won its case in Chase County, Neb., and again, when the farmers appealed,

September 15, 1982 in the Nebraska Supreme Court. On Sept. 5, 1981, the farmers were forced to shut down operation of their well.

Then the initiative shifted to Dudden, who describes hixnself as a "country hick lawyer." Dudden, who had never before tried to take a case to the high court, bought a primer, "The United States Supreme Court," to learn how to apply for a hearing.

He also consulted a Denver firm whose attorneys had experience in Supreme Court appeals. They suggested that the farmers base the appeal on a technicality: that underground water is an "article of commerce."

Dudden assigned Ed Steenburg, his newest employe who had just graduated from Creighton Law School in Omaha, to spend the next month· drafting the application to the court.

It was Steenburg's first case, and he worked 16-hour days and seven-day weeks, with Dudden going over one draft after another until at last the job was done. The application was filed under Dudden's name since Steenburg hadn't yet practiced the required three years to take a case to the high court.

On Nov. 28, 1981, Dudden received a call from a small Colorado weekly, The Yuma Pioneer, asking for reaction to a wire service report that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case. He thought it was a mistake. Then came a call from The Denver Post, and he began to believe it. Ten days later a post card arrived from the Supreme Court saying: "Sporhase vs. Nebraska. Probable jurisdiction noted."

Officials in western and Inidwestem states and almost every interest group that uses their water reacted with alarm. Seventeen briefs were filed in opposition to the farmers, only one in favor.

The abstruse argument that water was an article of commerce was obviously an explosive one. Western states have treated water differently from every other natural resource because of its importance to life.

They have divided the region's rivers and streaxns among thexnselves through complex formulas; sanctioned by the Supreme Court and interstate compacts. They have further divided their own water supplies among farmers, businesses, towns, wildlife, forests and other "beneficial uses."

Now Sporhase was arguing that water was part of the interstate commerce system, subject to regulation from Washington.

The briefs filed against Sporhase give a glimpse of what was at stake. A group of farmers called it a potential vehicle for the energy industry to siphon off water needed for agriculture; environmentalists saw in it a threat to state conservation prograxns that protect wildlife and forests; railroad interests perceived a boost to interstate coal pipelines-projects that need thousands of gallons of water and that threaten to break the rail lines' hold on the coal transportation business.

The only brief filed on the Sporhase-Moss side came from El Paso, which wants to pipe water from nearby New Mexico to meet its development demands but faces a New Mexico law similar to Nebraska's.

While the West debated these sweeping issues, the two farmers anxiously waited.

The hearing was scheduled for March 30, a Tuesday, but the Sporhases and the Mosses, the Duddens a.nd the Steenburgs arrived on the Friday before. Dudden's father flew in from Phoenix. His son came down from Pennsylvania State University. Spor-

September 15, 1982 base's. two granddaughters came along, as did some of his neighbors from. Holyoke.

Joy Sporhase and his clan had never before been to Washington, and they spent the next three days on a nonstop tourist whirl. They took pictures of everything, later placing the snapshots in a brown leather scrapbook, which sits next to their Bible on the living room coffee table. At the front of the book is a picture of the Sporhases and their grandchildren standing on the front steps of the Supreme Court.

Joy Sporhase say he will never forget how he felt walking into the court's hearing room that morning. "It was the first time I ever had knots in my stomach and I'm not even scared of the devil," he said. "You just sat there and said to yourself: Here you are, clear at the top."

After the hearing, Sporhase and Moss went home to their farm to tend their fields of dryland wheat, the crop they substituted for irrigated corn and beans after their water was cut off. In the western states, officials and interest groups awaited the decision as if it was a verdict.

The July 2 ruling was not as broad as some opponents had feared, or as some supporters had hoped. The court did conclude that water is an article of interstate commerce, meaning Nebraska cannot ban its export to Colorado, throwing into doubt similar provisions in a dozen other states.

But the 7-to-2 ruling upheld the rest of Nebraska's water law, including the state's right to regulate water use to ensure conservation. The justices said a state still could ban water exports if the ban is "narrowly tailored" to the goal of conserving water.

For Joy Sporhase, that was plenty. But for most western state officials it was too much.

"Ouch!" was the reaction of Nebraska Gov. Charles Thone. Officials predicted a flood of spinoff lawsuits, one for each time a state denies water exports in the name of conservation. The conservation programs in some states are so sketchy that officials said they will have trouble defending export bans even if they are justified.

About a dozen legislatures now are considering new or amended water laws, and some environmentalists have predicted optimistically that the ruling could lead to more sophisticated conservation programs throughout the region.

The anxiety comes in part from what David Aiken, a water law specialist at the University of Nebraska, calls the specter of "a full social and political transformation." If water is part of interstate commerce, several officials asked, will it eventually be put on the market for the highest bidder? How can farmers compete with oil companies? Will farmland eventually go out of production?

"For every water right sold to an energy company, the agrcultural base is reduced, the political influence of farmers declines," Aiken said.

Attorneys for the energy industry said they see no dramatic transformation from Sporhase, although several said the case fits into the pattern of changes reshaping the West.

Edward W. Clyde of Salk Lake City, who has practiced water law for four decades, said the case improves the position of coal pipelines and other energy interests "only slight;" since a welter of other legal hurdles remain. He said he does not expect Congress to invoke the ruling to intervene in state water regulation.

Sporhase still hasn't received a permit to irrigate his Colorado acres. The court sent

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS the case back to Nebraska with instructions to remove the export ban from the state's water law. Until that is done, state officials contend they cannot authorize Sporhase to pump water out of Nebraska. The farmer is considering a return trip to court.

On a recent day, Sporhase drove out to his well and parked his pickup on the state line. The sprinkler sat idle on the Colorado side, amid a field of dry wheat stubble. The well sat idle on the Nebraska side, overgrown with sunflowers and firebrush weeds.

Sporhase stood on the state line, leaned against his truck with the bumper sticker "Farmers Feed America. Do You?" and looked with pride and some consternation at his well.

"The day we stood up here at that auction and bid on this land," he said, "who ever would've thought we'd get into all this?"e

FULL CONSIDERATION DESERVED

HON. GUY VANDER JAGT OF MICHIGAN


e Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have learned that positive action now is being reported on H.R. 5133, more popularly known as local or domestic content legislation. It is my understanding that the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is expected momentarily to report the bill and refer it to our Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means for further hearings. Of equal importance, Chairman SAM GIBBONS, of the Subcommittee on Trade, has strongly indicated his willingness to call hearings on the measure as quickly as possible.

A1; my colleagues know, this legislation has particular meaning and impact on our automobile industry and, of course, on all of our autoworkers. At the same time, grave doubts have been raised as to the overall effect of this legislation and the distinct possibility of retaliatory trade restrictions by overseas trading partners in other areas of our economy.

We do have the benefit of exhaustive studies on this issue. Among others, one is by the United Auto Workers <UAW); another by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as our own Congressional Budget Office. In recent days, another comprehensive study has been completed by the Heritage Foundation here in Washington. The uniqueness of the Heritage study is that it comments on and includes pertinent points from the other major studies mentioned above.

Because this is an issue which the House quite likely will consider before adjournment, I strongly recommend each Member obtain a copy of the Heritage Foundation report from their Washington office.

On a more personal basis, let me mention-simply to emphasize the importance of this legislation-a very

23811 recent experience of mine. During my annual congressional mobile office tour in our Ninth Congressional District, I scheduled a number of visits to communities within Muskegon County. At each of these stops, a large group of citizens representing the UA W made their presence known and their support of this legislation. They, in essence, were "petitioning" their Congressman in behalf of this bill. They did so, let me stress, in the finest tradition. They were courteous, they were determined, and they were effective. The plight of our autoworkers is real and is great. Auto imports have had a tremendous impact on one of our Nation's great industries. It is time-past time really-for this Congress to consider this issue.

I am pleased, therefore, that further hearings are planned and I am pleased that the House leadership intends, according to its announcements, to move swiftly. I admit that I have reservations as to the possible effects of this legislation on other workers and other businesses-but only hearings will clarify this matter.

One final comment, and that is I further understand that the original bill, H.R. 5133, has just recently been greatly altered by its chief sponsor, Congressman RICHARD OTTINGER, so that the new version would make compliance "fairer and more realistic" for foreign-based companies. A Detroit News article on this development also is included:

[From the Detroit News, Sept. 3, 19821 TIMETABLE REVAMPED-DOMESTIC-CONTENT

AUTo BILL EASED (By John E. Peterson>

WASHINGTON.-The Chief sponsor of a UAW-backed bill aimed at prodding foreign auto makers to build U.S. plants is easing some of the measure's requirements.

Rep. Richard L. Ottinger, D-N.Y., unveiled a substitute "domestic content" bill yesterday that he hopes will win House passage before the fall elections. The bill, however, apparently has little chance in the Senate.

Ottinger said the new version would make compliance "fairer and more realistic" for foreign-based companies such as Volkswagen and Honda that are committed to high-volume U.S. production.

Yet Ottinger's revised bill, if enacted, would force Japan's Toyota and Nissan <Datsun) to transfer much of their production to the United States or reduce the levels of their U.S. sales.

The original domestic-content bill would have required companies with annual U.S. sales of 500,000 or more cars to produce 90 percent of their value in the United States by 1985.

The new bill, drafted by Ottinger after consultations with UA W President Douglas Fraser, would delay the 90-percent requirement to 1986 and apply it only to companies selling 900,000 or more cars and light trucks a year in the United States.

Under the earlier bill, companies with annual sales of between 100,000 or 200,000 vehicles would have needed 25 percent U.S. content and those with sales between

23812 200,000 to 500,000 would have needed 75 percent. The new bill would require 1 percentage point of domestic content for each 10,000 units sold, starting at 10 percent for 100,000 units.

At present sales levels, only general Motors, Ford and Chrysler would have to build cars with 90 percent local content, and they already do, said an Ottinger aide.

But Toyota and Nissan would have to increase the American-made parts in their U.S.-sold cars from the current 5 percent to nearly 75 percent by 1986 to maintain their present U.S. sales levels.

Though the Senate is likely to defeat the measure and President Reagan probably would veto it if it reached his desk, House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill of Massachusetts has urged fellow Democratic leaders to secure passage before the November elections, according to knowledgeable Capitol Hill sources.

"Tip is convinced that passage of this bill will allow a number of vulnerable Democratic members from industrialized areas to pick up enough added votes to put them over the top," one O'Neill aide said. "Even though Senate passage is doubtful, they'll be able to go home and say, 'Look, we're trying to do something to get people back to work.' "

The bill's chances of Senate passage, however, "are just about nonexistent," said an aide to Democrat Wendell Ford of Kentucky, the measure's chief sponsor in the Senate.e

LEGISLATION INTRODUCED TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM TARIFF SCHEDULE CLASSIFICATION AND DUTY RATE FOR IDENTICAL CORDAGE PRODUCTS

HON. DON BAILEY OF PENNSYLVANIA


Wednesday, September 15, 1982 e Mr. BAILEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the volume of importations into the United States of foreign-made cordage products has substantially increased, adversely affecting and injuring the United States cordage industry. This increase is due, in part, to the preferred tariff treatment accorded certain of these products because of an inadvertent and unintentional discrepancy in the custom laws. Because of this discrepancy, importations of plastic cordage (polypropylene, polyolefins, and copolymers) of identical characteristics and uses are classified under differing tariff schedule categories at substantially differing duty rates.

Cordage manufactured from plastic material which falls within the dimensional requirements of a strip is classified as "cordage." However, if the cordage is manufactured from plastic materials over 1 inch in width, such materials cease to be considered as textile fibers. Instead, it is considered as plastic and so classified under the tariff schedules. The reason behind this difference in classification is that the current definition of "cordage," as

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS contained in schedule 3, part 2, headnote l(a), restricts "cordage" to " ... assemblages of textile fibers or yarns .. .'' Importations of cordage manufactured from plastic material over 1 inch in width cannot be considered, under the dimensional requirements imposed for strips, as " ... assemblages of textile fibers or yarns . . . " and, therefore cannot be classified as "cordage." Consequently, such cordage made from plastic material is classified by the Customs Service under schedule 7, part 12, subpart D, item 774.55 as "Articles Not Specially Provided for of Rubber or Plastics: Other" at a duty rate of 7.3 percent ad valorem.

The result is that two identical importations of polypropylene cordage of identical characteristics and use are classified under differing tariff schedule categories at substantially differing duty rates merely because one product was manufactured from plastic material over 1 inch in width while the other was not. The following two letters from the U.S. Customs Service clarify the basis for the difference in classification.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE,

Washington, D.C. April28, 1982. DEAR - -: This is in reply to your

letter of January 27, 1982, concerning the tariff status of certain polypropylene twine. Five samples were submitted.

Each of the samples was submitted to our laboratory for analysis. Each was composed of polypropylene film which had been fibrillated and then twisted. All five samples were under 0.01 inch in thickness. Two of the samples, 375 Natural and 450 Natural, were determined to have been made from strips over 1 inch in width. The other three samples were determined to have been made from strips which were under 1 inch in width.

Headnote 3<c>, Subpart lE, Schedule 3, Tariff Schedules of the United States <TSUS>, defines the term "plexiform filaments" as flexible filaments each of which consists of a network or plexus of fine fibers and which are suitable for the manufacture of textiles. All five samples are considered to be plexiform filaments. This office has previously ruled that plexiform filaments which are derived from strips over 1 inch in width do not constitute textile materials for tariff purposes.

Merchandise as represented by the three samples of twine which are derived from plastic strips 1 inch or less in width are classifiable under the provision for cordage of man-made fibers, measuring under 3Yu inch in diameter, in item 316.55, TSUS, with duty at the column 1 rate of 10 cents per pound plus 13.8 percent ad valorem. Merchandise as represented by the two samples which are dervied from plastic strips over 1 inch in width are classifiable under the provision for other articles not specially provided for, of plastics, in item 774.55, TSUS, with duty at the column 1 rate 7.3 percent ad valorem. Merchandise classifiable in item 774.55, TSUS, may be entitled to duty-free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences < GSP), if a product of Taiwan, upon compliance with all applicable regulations.

For your information. the procedure whereby an American manufacturer petitions the Commissioner of Customs to

September 15, 1982 change the classification of certain merchandise is set out in section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended <19 U.S.C. 1516). Copies of this law and the relevant Customs Regulations are enclosed. If you believe that the classifications above are not correct, you may take action under section 516<a> of this law.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

HARVEY B. Fox, Director, Classification

and Value Division.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREAsURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE,

New York, N.Y., February 11, 1982. DEAR--: In your letter of January

22, 1982, you requested the tariff classification for polypropylene twine from Portugal, Korea, or Taiwan.

Five samples of polypropylene twine, ranging form 375 to 1100 feet per pound, were submitted with your inquiry. The twine is produced from extruded polypropylene film which has been slit into strips. These strips are then fibrillated and twisted into cordage.

The tariff classification of this type of merchandise is determined by the dimensions of the individual strips prior to fibrillation. Cordage which is produced from strips not over one inch in width is considered to be of man-made fiber textile material. Strips which are over one inch are considered plastic for tariff purposes. As it is quite difficult to determine the exact original width of a strip after it has been fully fibrillated, we cannot state with absolute certainty which of your samples fall into each category. We would therefore suggest that you check with your suppliers to ascertain the exact width of the strips prior to fibrillation.

After examining each of the five items, it is our opinion that at least three of the samples are produced from strips under one inch in width. If this is in fact the case, then samples <C> 900 natural, <D> 1000 black, and <E> 1100 hemp are classified under the provision for cordage of man-made fibers measuring under o/1s inch in diameter, in item 316.55, Tariff Schedules of the United States, with duty at 10 cents per pound plus 13.8 percent ad valorem.

Due to the larger size and extensive fibrillation of items (A) 375 natural and 450 natural, we are unable to determine the width of the strips from which these samples were produced. If strips under one inch were fibrillated, then classification would be under TSUS item 316.55, as discussed above. However, if these two twines are produced from polypropylene strips over one inch in width, they are classifiable under the provision for articles not specifically provided for, of plastics, in item 774.55, TSUS, and dutiable at 7.3 percent ad valorem.

Cordage of man-made fibers may be subject to import restraints (quotas> based on international trade agreements. Import restraints are imposed by the U.S. Customs Service under directives of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. Polypropylene twine, produced in Korea of Taiwan and classified in TSUS item 316.55, requires a visa for category 605. Due to the changeable nature of these restraints, you are advised to contact your local Customs office prior to importation of this merchandise to determine the current status of such restraints.

Articles classifiable under item 774.55, TSUS, which are the products of Portugal

September 15, 1982 or Korea are entitled to duty free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences <GSP> upon compliance with all applicable regulations. Taiwan is currently excluded from this duty exemption. However, the recently published ten month figures for items included under GSP indicate that, effective March 31, 1982, Taiwan may regain its duty-free status for tariff item 774.55.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177.Ha>O > of the Customs Regulations [19 C.F.R. 177.Ha><l>l.

Sincerely, JOHN J. MARTUGE,

Area Director, New York Seaport.

Foreign manufacturers have taken full advantage of this discrepancy in the Customs laws. They have been certain that the cordage they produce for export to the United States is constructed of plastic material over 1 inch in width in order to obtain the advantages of the lower duty rates. As a consequence, they are afforded an unfair economic advantage over the domestic cordage industry. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that item 77 4.55 receives General Systems of Preferences treatment. This means that importations of cordage entering under item 774.55 from certain designated beneficiary countries receive duty-free status. Additionally, there are quota restrictions on cordage entered under Items 316.55, 316.58, 348.00, and 348.05, but no quota restrictions on cordage entered under item 77 4.55. Therefore, not only is the foreign manufacturer receiving the benefits of a lower duty or no duty for cordage made from plastic material entered under item 77 4.55, but he is also totally circumventing the quota restrictions imposed on other item categories.

It does not appear that such diverse and inequitable treatment was intended by the Congress when the tariff schedules were drafted, particularly when its direct effect is to seriously harm the United States cordage industry. The legislation I am introducing today will remedy this unfair situation. The legislation will amend the tariff schedules and result in all like cordage made from plastic material to be identically classified at the same duty rate regardless of the dimensions of the plastic material from which it is manufactured. The changes required in the tariff schedules are minor and will have the sole effect of affording all like importations of cordage identical treatment by the Customs Service. I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting the unfair treatment afforded the U.S. cordage industry under the U.S. tariff schedule.

I have included the text of the bill and ask that it be printed in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD at the conclusion of my introductory statement.

The material follows:

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS H.R. 7107

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FlNDINGS.-The Congress finds that-( 1 > in recent years various cordage prod

ucts of virtually identical characteristics and use have been and are being imported into the United States;

(2) due to an insignificant variation in the size of the material from which these cordage products are manufactured, such products may be and have been imported under distinctly different classifications in the Tariff Schedules of the United States carrying substantially differend duty rates;

<3> the dimensions of the material from which the cordage products are manufactured has no effect on the finished products in terms of overall characteristics or use, and the finished products as imported into the United States are identical;

<4> in the drafting of such Tariff Schedules it was not the intention of Congress to have two identical products classified under varying provisions of the Tariff Schedules at differing duty rates;

<5> foreign manufacturers of cordage have been and are using this discrepancy in the Tariff Schedules to enter their products into the commerce of the United States at duty rates lower than those intended for cordage products;

(6) such action by foreign manufacturers has resulted in serious and substantial economic harm and injury to the United States cordage industry; and

(7) immediate measures are required to rectify this inequitable situation in the Tariff Schedules and to prevent further harm to the United States cordage industry.

(b) PuRPosE.-It is the purpose of this Act to provide for identical classification and duty rates under the Tariff Schedules of the United States for importation of cordage products which are identical in character but which may have been manufactured from like materials of varying dimensions. SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TARIFF SCHED-

ULES. <a> Part 2 of schedule 3 of the Tariff

Schedules of the United States is amended-O> by amending headnote l(a) thereto by

inserting "plastics or man-made materials," immediately after "assembleges of textile fiber or yarns,"; and

(2) by amending the superior heading to items 316.55 and 316.58 by inserting". Plastics or other man-made materials" immediately after "Of man-made fibers".

(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the enactment of this Act. but not before October 1. 1982.e

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA

HON.THOMASJ.DO~Y OF NEW YORK


e Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing but assurances from the Reagan administration and the South African Government that

23813 human rights conditions are improving in South Africa.

In fact, when the Ad Hoc Monitoring Group on Southern Africa wrote to South African Ambassador Sole about the admission of several detainees into the psychiatric ward of a Durban hospital, he intimated that the hospitalization was the result of a conspiracy to give publicity to conditions of detention, and that the detainees had faked their illness.

Yet others disagree. Last week, Ireceived a letter from an organization called the Detainees' Parents Support Committee. This group is composed of parents who are trying to find out why their children have been detained by the South African police. They wrote in refutation of Ambassador Sole's letter.

So that the whole story is told, I would like to have this document inserted into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

JOHANNESBURG, August 24, 1982.

Congressman THoMAs DoWNEY, U.S. Congress, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Sm. We beg to refer to a letter sent to you some months back by the then South African Ambassador to your country, Mr. Donald Sole, dealing with the state of health of Political Detainees in South Africa and in which he claimed that most detainees had "faked" ill-health.

In refutation of this allegation this Committee drew up a carefully researched document setting out the truth of the matter. This memorandum was duly forwarded to you through Consular channels, but we have been given to understand that it has not reached you. We now therefore send you this enclosed copy direct through the post, and will also have it channelled through the American Press.

The recent death in detention of Mr. Moabi Dipale, after only three or four days in the hands of the Security Police underscores this issue sufficiently not to require any further comments.

Yours faithfully, <For the D.P.S.C.)

[Memorandum] REPLY To THE SoUTH AFRICAN AMBAssADoR

AT WASHINGTON, MR. DONALD SoLE, CoNCERNING THE HEALTH OF DETAINEES

PREAMBLE

Prominent American politicians expressed concern at the conditions of incarceration of detainees held for interrogation by the South African Police. This followed the death in detention of Dr. Neil Aggett on the 5/2/1982 and the hospitalization of a number of other persons held in solitary confinement in terms of South African security legislation.

On the 12th May, it was reported that Mr. Sole, South African Ambassador to Washington, had released a statement to the effect inter alia that the hospitalizations of detainees were as a result of a conspiracy by unnamed persons to give publicity to conditions of detention and that the detainees had faked their illness. <Rand Daily Mail 12/5/82)

This Memorandum deals with the following:

23814 < 1 > The source of the information supplied

to Mr. Sole. <2> The medical ethics involved in the re

lease of the "information" contained in the statement.

<3> The inaccuracy of the contents of the said statement.

<4> The effects of solitary confinement on the health of a detainee.

(5) The request for an independent inquiry into the medical condition of the particular detainees mentioned in Mr. Sole's statement, as well as the medical treatment of detainees generally.

1. MR. SOLE'S SOURCE

The source of Mr. Sole's information was revealed in Parliament by Mr. Pik Botha, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 20.5.82. He informed Parliament that Mr. Sole had obtained his information from the South African Police, the very agency which was responsible for the detention and interrogation of the detainees. <The Star, 20.5.82>

2. THE DISCLOSURE OF THE MEDICAL STATE OF DETAINEES

2.1 On March 5th, 1982 the Minister of Justice informed Parliament that it was questionable whether it was ethically justifiable "to publicly discuss" the psychiatric condition of detainees. <Hansard, 5.3.82, Column 23). The Department of Health has itself stated that "Permission for the disclosure of a diagnosis may be given only by the patient, next of kin or the medical practitioner in Court under protest". <"Special Areas of Primary Health", p. 33)

2.2 Mr. Sole's statement represents a turnabout on the part of the South African Government. In summary, representatives of the South African Government have seen fit to publicly disclose confidential medical information, which information was based on reports given to them by the Security Police. That this information itself has been refuted by the medical practitioners involved in treating the detainees, underscore the unreliability of the source of the information.

3. THE INACCURACY OF MR. SOLE'S STATEMENT

Mr. Sole's allegations are refuted as follows:

3.1 Mr. Sole alleged that the detainees were all hospitalized at almost the same time, which was when they had access to their families. Furthermore, Mr. Sole stated that there was a conspiracy to highlight mental illness which coincided with a campaign by the detainees relatives to publicise the conditions under which the detainees were being held.

In reply it must be pointed out that: <a> all communications between detainees

and relatives were supervised and controlled by, and in the presence of Security Police;

(b) the dates of hospitalization reveal no pattern of simultaneous hospitalization. The detainees referred to by Mr. Sole were hospitalised on dates which range from 20.11.81 to 16.3.82;

<c> some of those hospitalised received no family visits;

<d> the Parents' Support Committee reject strongly the suggestion that they conspired to induce their children to fake mental illness;

<e> it was the world wide concern at the death of Dr. Neil Aggett which induced the authorities to refer certain detainees to hospital who should have been taken there earlier.

(f) it is difficut to conceive of a conspiracy between the detainees who were held incommunicado in separate prisons up to 600 kilo-meters apart.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 3.2 Mr. Sole has stated that 7 of the 9 de

tainees were faking mental illness. He stated in one instance that a psychiatrist could find nothing seriously wrong with detainees Mr. Pravin Gordhan and Mr. Sam Klkine. However, the psychiatrist, Dr. C. S. Levisohn, who treated these detainees has refuted this claim. He has stated that he could not understand where Mr. Sole had obtained his information for this was not what he had reported to the District Surgeon or the Commissioner of Police. <Natal Mercury 15.5.82> As Mrs. Gordhan has stated "The fact that Pravin was ... admitted for psychiatric treatment by doctors appointed by the State is sufficient evidence of the truth." <Rand Daily Mail, 13.5.82>.

3.3 Another example cited by Mr. Sole is that of Thozamile Gqeta, whom he alleges was released because of his mental condition and yet was able to continue his activities without let up or any sign of mental disturbance.

Mr. Gqeta, a prominent trade unionist, was detained on several occasions in 1980 and 1981. On some of these occasions he was maltreated and kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time. In October 1981 his mother and Uncle were killed when their house was burnt down under sinister circumstances. When Mr. Gqeta and his girlfriend were returning from his mother's funeral, she was shot dead by Ciskei Police. Shortly afterwards, he was detained yet again. It was at this point that he suffered such severe depression that doctors opposed his continued detention. When his brother visited him in hospital he reported that Thozamile was unrecognizable. A spokesman for the South African Allied Workers Union, <SAA WU> stated <22.5.1982> that when Mr. Gqweta was released, his mental condition was so poor, he received extensive and regular psychiatric treatment. He was too weak to continue his work for the union even had he wished to.

3.4 With regard Mrs. Levitan, Mr. Sole implies that she too faked mental illness and that "A psychiatrist indicated he could find little wrong with her." However, Mrs. Levitan was never admitted to a psychiatric ward, but was hospitalized twice as a result of a physical complaint.

3.5 In his disclosure, Mr. Sole stated that "Mrs. ·Mbatha suffered from high blood pressure <she is very obese> and has been treated in hospital for this condition". This statement is inaccurate. The facts of Mrs. Mbatha's illness are more revealing. In the first instance, Mrs. Mbatha is not obese. She was detained in October 1981. The police compelled her to take her 2 year old child with her. Subsequently, the police forcibly took the child away without revealing where they were going to place her. They taunted Mrs. Mbatha by informing her that the child would be placed in an institution for "Communist children" administered by the Security Police. Later Mrs. Mbatha became ill. Her first request to see a doctor was ignored. Approximately five days later, she was taken to a district surgeon who diagnosed high blood pressure, prescribed medication and instructed the Police to bring Mrs. Mbatha back within a week. The Security Police neglected to administer the medication and to take Mrs. Mbatha back to the district surgeon as instructed.

Mrs. Mbatha's condition deteriorated over the next fortnight until she collapsed suffering inter alia from partial paralysis. Mrs. Mbatha was only hospitalized 5 days later after the district surgeon had seen her condition. While she was in the hospital, the

September 15, 1982 Security Police threatened her and accused her of shamming.

3.6 Mr. Sole claims that "detainees are able to give the utmost publicity to what in most cases turned out to be unfounded claims of illness."

In reply, we must point out that-<a> the State has enacted legislation

which serves to prevent detainees, their relatives and the press from giving publicity to the conditions of detention, the health of a detainee, or the methods of interrogation. <The Police Act, The Terrorism Act, the Prisons Act.> In terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act not even a parent is entitled to know if a detainee has been hospitalized. To us, the major cause for concern is not the publicity given to the conditions of detainees, but on the contrary, the secrecy surrounding their detentions.

(b) There is no public access to the complaints made by the detainee to the police, the Inspect:--r, the magistrate or the district surgeon. Until such access exists there can be no guarantee that the detainee's complaints will be acted upon. The case of Mrs. Mbatha is evidence of the potential for neglect where the detainee is dependent on the will of her captors to see that he or she receives medical attention. This would appear to be aggravated where the authorities' attitude, as exemplified by the attitude of Mr. Sole's informants, is one of skepticism towards the complaints of detainees.

3.7 Mr. Sole states that the comparison between the treatment of detainees in South Africa and the use of psychiatric hospitals followed by other countries is not relevant.

We believe that this assertion should be qualified. In the first place we would point out that the clinical independence of the doctor treating a detainee patient has not been accepted by the South African Authorities. A detainee has no right to see a doctor of his choice. Even a decision of the State appointed doctor concerning the medical treatment of a detainee may be overruled by the Security Police. <See the record on the Biko inquest>. Furthermore, communications between the detainee and the doctor have been relayed back to the Security Police.

Secondly we believe that the widespread use of detention in solitary confinement for long periods of time with or without exposure to the Security Police's methods of interrogation can have, and has had, profound psychological effects on the human mind. It is artificial to distinguish this form of mental treatment on the basis that it does not take place in a hospital. Such treatment is no less sinister because it takes place in a police station and detainees are merely treated in a hospital.

As regards the coupling of solitary confinement with drastic methods of interrogation, we refer to the words of the legal representative instructed by the Minister of Law and order. Mr. Schabort opposed the publication of a statement made by Dr. Neil Aggett 14 hours before he died, and in which he stated that he had been blindfolded, punched, kicked, electrically shocked and kept awake for days at a time. Mr. Schabort argued that publication of this statement was not in the national interest because it "would disclose the working methods and techniques of the Security Police". <The Star, 3.6.1982) 4. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH

4.1 The implications of Mr. Sole's statement are that solitary confinement per se

September 15, 1982 poses no threat and has no effect on mental health. This view is shared by the Minister of Law and Order, Mr. Le Grange, who has stated in Parliament that solitary confinement is not mental torture. It should be pointed out here that solitary confinement for lengthy periods up to and sometimes exceeding a year is widespread practice in South Africa. Its use is mostly confined to persons detained without charge under legislation dealing with the 'security of the State'. <See 'Report on the Report of the Rabie Commission'-Centre for Applied Legal Studies-page 102.>

4.2 Professor C. J. Vorster of the Rand Afrikaans University does not share the view of the Minister of Law and Order. He has stated that solitary confinement is a severe form of mental torture. <Rand Daily Mail 11.2.1982> Professor Vorster stated that it is accepted worldwide amongst academics that solitary confinement or stimulus deprivation is at the same level as physical torture. Professor S. J. Saunders, Principal of the University of Cape Town, has stated "there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that solitary confinement such as that experienced by detainees held in South Africa under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act, may result and frequently will result in serious psychological changes which will impair the detainee's ability to arrive at the truth" This view is shared by Professors Albino and Mathews of Natal University. <'The permanence of the temporary' SALJ, 1 966, p.23)

The Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of South Africa described solitary confinement and spare diet "as a form of punishment which cannot be tolerated in a civilized society."

4.3 Professor Vorster reviewing literature on the effects of solitary confinement has said that the effects of this treatment include hallucinations, disorientation, anxiety, delusions, susceptibility to persuasion or propaganda, and severe depression. <Rand Daily Mail, 11.2.82) 5. REJECTION OF MR. SOLE'S STATEMENT AND

THE CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES

Mr. Sole's statement ought to be rejected in the first instance because of its inaccuracy and the unrealiability of its source and secondly because it implies that detention in solitary confinement is not a threat to the mental health of detainees. In this way, the South African Police and Mr. Sole seek to justify its prevalent use.

The detainees concerned see Mr. Sole's allegations in a serious light and accordingly have agreed, together with their doctors, to publicly refute Mr. Sole's allegations and to grant access to their medical records to any independent inquiry which wishes to establish the correctness of Mr. Sole's allegations. However, it is not only the cases of these particular detainees that need to be examined, but the practice of solitary confinement in South Africa and the existence or otherwise of adequate safeguards to guarantee the safety and health of detainees. The media has drawn attention to the tragic death of Dr. Neil Aggett. However, Neil Aggett was not the first person to die while detained U..l'lder Security Legislation in recent years. He was the 50th.

APPENDIX

Medical Access to the Detainees: < 1) Only State appointed doctors have

access to detainees. (2) The detainee has no choice in what

doctor he may see. After the death in detention of Dr. Neil Aggett, the Detainees Par-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ents' Support Committee and its Health sub-Commission demanded that an independent panel of doctors chosen by the DPSC have the right of access to all detainees. The State refused to accede to this demand.

(3) There is not enforceable right by relatives of detainees to information relating to the health of the detainee.

(4) There is no routine psychiatric examination of persons held in solitary confinement.

<5> There is no guarantee that a decision by a doctor will not be overruled by the Security Police.e

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February 4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees, subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate Daily Digest-designated by the Rules Committee-of the time, place, and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or changes in the meetings as they occur.

As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Monday and Wednesday of each week.

Any changes in committee scheduling will be indicated by placement of an asterisk to the left of the name of the unit conducting such meetings.

Meetings scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 1982, may be found in the Daily Digest of today's REcoRD.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

SEPTEMBER 17 9:30a.m.

Energy and Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcom

mittee To continue oversight hearings on

America's role in the world coal export market.

3110 Dirksen Building 10:00 a.m.

Foreign Relations To hold hearings on the nomination of

William R. Graham, of California, to be a member of the General Advisory Committee of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

4221 Dirksen Building Judiciary Separation of Powers Subcommittee

To hold hearings on the Joint China Communique, Taiwan Relations Act and documentation of separations of powers.

5110 Dirksen Building

23815 SEPTEMBER 20

9:30a.m. Foreign Relations Arms Control, Oceans, International Op

erations, and Environment Subcommittee

To hold hearings on the militarization of space and arms control.


Judiciary To resume oversight hearings on Gov

ernment merger enforcement policy, focusing on the legal and economic basis for horizontal merger policy.

2228 Dirksen Building 2:00p.m.

Judiciary To resume hearings on S. 2784, proposed

Major League Sports Community Protection Act.


Foreign Relations To hold hearings on the nominations of

Jay F. Morris, of Maryland, to be Deputy Administrator, Agency for International Development, and Edward A. Curran, of Maryland, to be Deputy Director, Peace Corps.



Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Foreign Agricultural Policy Subcommittee

To hold hearings on U.S. agricultural exports of processed and value-added products, focusing on the history of these exports as well as potential benefits of increased export volume.

324 Russell Building Select on Indian Affairs

To hold hearings on S. 2847, proposed Indian Housing Act.


•Governmental Affairs To resume hearings on S. 2562, transfer

ring certain activities of the Department of Energy to the Department of Commerce.

3302 Dirksen Building Judiciary

Business meeting, to consider pending calendar business.

2228 Dirksen Building Labor and Human Resources Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Subcommit

tee To hold hearings on the effects of alco

hol consumption during pregnancy. 4232 Dirksen Building

10:15 a.m. Foreign Relations

To hold hearings on the nominations of Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., of Virginia, to be a member of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, and W. Scott Thompson, of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Director of Broadcasting, U.S. Information Agency.


Veterans' Affairs To hold hearings to receive American

Legion legislative recommendations for fiscal year 1983.

318 Russell Building

23816 11:00 a.m.

Foreign Relations Business meeting, to consider pending

treaties and nominations. 4221 Dirksen Building

2:30p.m. Foreign Relations

To hold hearings on the nominations of Theodore C. Maino, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana, Peter D. Constable, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Zaire, and Robert B. Oakley, of Louisiana, to be Ambassador to Somali Democratic Republic.


Foreign Relations Closed meeting, to consult with officials

on the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START).

8-116, Capitol


Labor and Human Resources To hold hearings on the Department of

Labor's need for additional assistance to combat organized crime.


Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Soil and Water Conservation Subcommit

tee To hold hearings on proposed legislation

authorizing funds for soil and water conservation programs of the Department of Agriculture.

324 Russell Building Energy and Natural Resources

Business meeting, on pending calendar business.

3110 Dirksen Building Foreign Relations

To hold hearings on the nominations of William A. Hewitt, of illinois, to be Ambassador to Jamaica, and Everett E. Briggs, of Maine, to be Ambassador to Panama.

4221 Dirksen Building Governmental Affairs

To hold hearings to review proposals providing benefits to former Presidents and their families.


To resume hearings on the impact of the Boulder, Colo. decision, relating to potential antitrust liabilities for local governments.


Energy and Natural Resources Public Lands and Reserved Water Sub

committee. To hold hearings on S. 2061, providing

for the conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement of natural and cultural resources located on public and Indian lands, and H.R. 4861, establishing the American Conservation Corps.


To hold hearings on pending nominations.


Foreign Relations European Affairs Subcommittee

To hold hearings on United StatesSoviet research studies.


EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS SEPTEMBER 23

9:00a.m. Energy and Natural Resources Public Lands and Reserved Water Sub

committee To hold hearings on S. 2801, providing

for the withdrawal of certain lands in the national wilderness preservation system and certain other lands from mineral leasing.

3110 Dirksen Building Office of Technology Assessment

Board meeting, to discuss pending business matters.

EF-100, Capitol 9:30a.m.

*Energy and Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcom

mittee To resume oversight hearings on Ameri

ca's role in the world coal export market.

5302 Dirksen Building Judiciary Criminal Law Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 1747, relating to the purchase of prison-made products by Federal departments, to allow in certain cases, the purchases of similar products from small businesses.


10:00 a.m. Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga

tions To resume hearings on the alleged use

of false identification to penetrate Federal programs.

3302 Dirksen Building Judiciary Agency Administration Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 2863, to extend Federal employees compensation benefits to all Federal jurors, to provide the awarding of attorney fees for court appointed attorneys, and to expand the method of serving jury summons.

6226 Dirksen Building 1:00 p.m.

Judiciary Immigration and Refugee Policy Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on refugee consulta

tion. Room to be announced

2:00p.m. Governmental Affairs

To hold hearings on the nomination of K. William O'Connor, of Virginia, to be Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

3302 Dirksen Building Judiciary Security and Terrorism Subcommittee

To hold hearings on S. 2255, proposed Antiterrorism and Foreign Mercenary Act.



Commerce, Science, and Transportation Aviation Subcommittee

To hold hearings on airline labor protection relating to mergers, acquisitions, and intercarrier transactions.

235 Russell Building 10:00 a.m.

Judiciary Courts Subcommittee

To resume hearings on S. 1529 and S. 2035, bills establishing the National

September 15, 1982 Court of Appeals, and to begin hearings on S. 1403 and S. 1874, bills to reform and improve the annuity program for survivors of Federal justices and judges.



Finance To hold hearings on proposals providing

for a flat-rate income tax, and a simplified income tax with lower rates and fewer exemptions from the general rate.



Finance To continue hearings on proposals pro

viding for a flat-rate income tax, and a simplified income tax with lower rates and fewer exemptions from the general rate.


Environment and Public Works Business meeting, on pending calendar

business. 4200 Dirksen Building

Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga

tions To resume hearings to investigate al

leged involvement of organized crime and mismanagement of funds in the hotel and restaurant workers union <HEREIU>, focusing on local 28, Oakland, Calif., local 19, San Jose, Calif., local 86, Reno, Nev., and local 30, San Diego, Calif.


Business meeting, to consider pending calendar business



•commerce, Science, and Transportation To hold hearings on S. 1626, to reform

and improve the regulation of oil pipelines.

235 Russell Building Finance

To continue hearings on proposals providing for a flat-rate income tax, and a simplified income tax with lower rates and fewer exemptions from the general rate.


Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

To continue hearings to investigate alleged involvement of organized crime and mismanagement of funds in the hotel and restaurant workers union <HEREIU>. focusing on local 28, Oakland, Calif., local 19, San Jose, Calif., local 86, Reno, Nev., and local 30, San Diego, Calif.


To resume hearings on S. 2784, proposed Major League Sports Community Protection Act.

September 15, 1982 10:30 a.m.

Governmental Affairs Federal Expenditures, Research and Rules Subcommittee

To resume oversight hearings on the inplementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (Public Law 96-511).

2:00p.m. 5110 Dirksen Building

Judiciary To hold hearings on pending nomina

tions. 2228 Dirksen Building


Judiciary Juvenile Justice Subcommittee

To hold hearings on proposed assistance to State and local law enforcements to reduce criminal case backloads.


Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga

tions To continue hearings to investigate al

leged involvement of organized crime and mismanagement of funds in the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS hotel and restaurant workers union (HEREIU), focusing on local 28, Oakland, Calif., local 19, San Jose, Calif., local 86, Reno, Nev., and local 30, San Diego, Calif.

3302 Dirksen Building Judiciary Agency Administration Subcommittee

To hold oversight hearings on the indemnification of and contributions to Government contractors.

2228 Dirksen Building Labor and Human Resources Education, Arts, and Humanities Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on S. 2655, providing

an alternative source of financial assistance for social security student benefit recipients.

4232 Dirksen Building 1:30 p.m.

Judiciary Immigration and Refugee Policy Subcom

mittee To hold hearings on Presidential immi

gration emergency powers. 2228 Dirksen Building

23817 OCTOBER6

10:00 a.m. Judiciary Agency Administration Subcommittee

To hold oversight hearings on the accessibility of the judicial system.


CANCELLATIONS

SEPTEMBER 16 10:00 a.m.

Governmental Affairs To hold oversight hearings on certain

activities of the General Services Administration.



Governmental Affairs Oversight of Government Management

Subcommittee To hold oversight hearings on the use of

computer matching in certain federal agencies.


23766 - US Government Publishing Office

Documents

Transcript of 23766 - US Government Publishing Office